Hillarycare II is toast

In my not-so-humble opinion Justice Ginsberg let the cat out of the bag:

To me, Ginsberg’s comments indicate Hillarycare II will be overturned. I can smell sour grapes in her remarks. Ginsberg was sending a message to the Left —— PREPARE —— we are going to provide plenty of talking points in our dissenting opinions. No message would be needed if the law is upheld. In addition, talking points is the standard fallback position whenever Socialists lose.

Had a justice who is considered conservative said the same things Ginsberg said, I would predict the ACA would be upheld.

Naturally, I could be misinterpreting Ginsberg’s preemptive strike. D.C. police are not taking any chances:

Supreme Court police prepared for ruling on healthcare reform law
By Debbie Siegelbaum - 06/18/12 05:00 AM ET

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatc...-prepared-for-ruling-on-healthcare-reform-law

Protests are common in D.C., but Hillarycare II is do or die for the Left, while no one can seriously think conservatives will turn to violence if that travesty is upheld. There is good reason not to expect violence from conservatives: Conservatives are well along in their goal to repeal the law should it be upheld, while liberals will have do the same thing they did when the original Hillarycare went down in flames; i.e., wait and pray for another chance to ram Hillarycare 3 down the public’s throat.

Finally, violence, or the threat of violence, is the Left’s game.

On eve of health ruling, Ruth Bader Ginsburg predicts 'sharp disagreement'
By KYLE CHENEY | 6/15/12 7:23 PM EDT

With a wry smile, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg laid waste Friday to all those rumors about the fate of the Affordable Care Act in the Supreme Court.

“Those who know don’t talk. And those who talk don’t know,” she quipped Friday night at a conference hosted by the American Constitution Society at the Capital Hilton.

Ginsburg said she was responding to a "steady stream of rumors and fifth-hand accounts" about the court's deliberations on the law.

Careful not to tip her hand on the court’s ruling — expected in the next two weeks — Ginsburg described the oral arguments in the case as unprecedented for the number of “press conferences, prayer circles, protests and counterprotests” that occurred on the courthouse steps.

Although she offered no insight into the tightly held decisions of her colleagues, Ginsburg did indicate that many of the court’s decisions over the next two weeks — which are also expected to include an FCC indecency ruling — might be close.

The 21 remaining decisions, she said, were “many of the most controversial cases” that the court reviewed this term.

“It is likely that the sharp disagreement rate will go up next week and the week after,” she said.

Although the oral arguments on the ACA spanned six hours over three days, she noted that a case cited during those arguments — McCullough v. Maryland — featured oral arguments that spanned nine days over two months.

Ginsburg noted that one ACA-related question the court must decide is whether the whole law must fall if the individual mandate is unconstitutional — “or may the mandate be chopped, like a head of broccoli, from the rest of it?”

But no, she didn't drop any hints about what the answer will be.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 7:20 p.m. on June 15, 2012.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77479.html

 

Some are predicting a decision today.

 

To Hoosier8: That’s too much to hope for. Cynics think they will release their decision just in time to board the last bus out of town.

Not today: Supreme Court ruling on 'Obamacare' still pending
By Paul West
June 18, 2012, 7:31 a.m.

WASHINGTON — With the Supreme Court’s 2011-2012 term rapidly coming to a close, the release of a decision on the constitutionality of President Obama’s sweeping healthcare law is imminent — but it won’t be today.

The justices issued their latest set of decisions on Monday morning and the healthcare ruling wasn’t among them. The case is being closely monitored by both the legal and political communities, as the healthcare industry, government officials at the state and federal levels and many more.

Thursday will be the next chance for the opinion to be handed down. But most court analysts aren’t expecting it until sometime next week.

The justices are likely to issue opinions on Monday and Thursday of next week, and possibly on other days. Thursday of next week is expected to be the last day of the term.

Historically, the court has saved many of its most momentous rulings until the final day of the term, and the healthcare case is likely to be follow that pattern.

paul.west@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...macare-still-pending-20120618,0,1361423.story

 

Originally C-SPAN and Pelosi called for cameras in the Supreme Court:

Pelosi backs call for Supreme Court to televise healthcare case arguments
By Sam Baker - 11/16/11 12:21 PM ET

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatc...backs-call-for-supreme-court-to-televise-heal t h care-arguments

Cameras in the court is back, only now it’s for the ruling:

Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) are long-standing supporters of cameras in the Supreme Court. They were among the high-profile lawmakers who pressed the court — unsuccessfully — to televise the historic six-plus hours of oral arguments in the healthcare case.

After losing that push, they want the justices to open up the court when the decision is handed down. A ruling is expected to come in the next two weeks.

I’ll repeat what I said the first time around:

“When Pelosi calls for cameras in the Supreme Court, I know I’m right in hoping Chief Justice Roberts says “No.”

And what the hell is Republican Senator Grassley thinking? Does he not realize that C-SPAN and the other liberal networks will edit and run selected portions of the proceedings to make it look like Affordable Care’s supporters won hands down? That’s why liberals want cameras in there in the first place. In the event the Court overturns the bill they’ll slant edited clips to make it look like the justices who voted against the bill had a political agenda.

Bottom line: Never forget this: The camera always lies, and the TV camera is the biggest liar of all.”

Nothing has changed. I do not know about Grassley, but no Democrat would stand still for TV cameras in the High Court if the MSM was overtly conservative the way it is liberal.

The text will become available for those who are interested.

Sens. Leahy, Grassley call on Supreme Court to televise healthcare ruling
By Sam Baker - 06/19/12 10:38 AM ET

The top Democrat and top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to televise its ruling in the landmark challenge to President Obama’s healthcare law.

Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) are long-standing supporters of cameras in the Supreme Court. They were among the high-profile lawmakers who pressed the court — unsuccessfully — to televise the historic six-plus hours of oral arguments in the healthcare case.

After losing that push, they want the justices to open up the court when the decision is handed down. A ruling is expected to come in the next two weeks.

“A minimal number of cameras in the courtroom, which could be placed to be barely noticeable to all participants, would provide live coverage of what may be one of the most historic rulings of our time,” Leahy and Grassley said in a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts. “We believe permitting the nation to watch the proceedings would bolster public confidence in our judicial system and in the decisions of the Court.”

The justices have resisted televising their oral arguments in part because they say cameras could distort the process. The justices’ questions are pointed and at times esoteric. Some justices have expressed concern that the presence of cameras would lead to grandstanding, the way it has in other forums such as congressional hearings.

Decisions are usually less visual than oral arguments. Usually, the justice who wrote the majority opinion reads a short part of the decision aloud, and the court then moves or calls it a day.

In the 2010 Citizens United decision, however, Justice John Paul Stevens took the unusual step of reading aloud from his dissent. It’s rare for a dissenting justice to read an opinion aloud from the bench, and is generally seen as a sign that the he or she is deeply troubled by the majority’s decision.

If any case is going to provide the same level of intensity, it’s probably healthcare. The case set a new record for outside briefs, and protesters packed the plaza in front of the Supreme Court building during all three days of oral arguments.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said last week that “sharp disagreements” are sure to flare up over the next few weeks as the court releases the last opinions of its term, including the healthcare decision.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatc...t-supreme-court-to-televise-healthcare-ruling

 

Wrong again, Flanders.

LOL... Better stick to birther threads.

 

To BullsLawDan: How small of you. You should be thanking me for making you feel good.

To BullsLawDan: Does that mean you secretly believe I’m right?

 

No, it means at least in birther threads you're joined by others, instead of this thread talking to yourself.

 

To BullsLawDan: You always mouth off then try to cover up with more stupidity. You, and over 300 others, read it!