A piece in The Washington Times says: Ruling on health care case hard to predict Conservative justices could side either way By Paige Winfield Cunningham - The Washington Times Sunday, March 25, 2012 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/25/ruling-on-health-care-case-hard-to-predict/ I don’t know if it counts as a prediction, but I’ve said the High Court always rules for big government and against private sector Americans; at least that is the Court’s track record in my lifetime. Rulings protecting criminals, and Roe v. Wade, cannot be counted as rulings for the people. Deciding factors Acting US Solicitor General Neal Katyal touches on a significant factor that is largely ignored by the pundits: Rejecting 'Obamacare' would be 'grave and profound' By Chantal Valery | AFP – 12 hours ago http://ca.news.yahoo.com/rejecting-obamacare-grave-profound-232716680.html Hussein is the government’s president. The Supreme Court is an integral part of the government. Justices might not like him after he lied about them in a State of the Union Address, but to overturn “. . . a president's signature initiative . . .” has to be a major consideration for most of them. And please do not tell me that every member of the High Court is above politics. Were that true they would not be classified as liberals and conservatives, nor would Ginsberg denounce the very Constitution she interprets. The things she said in Egypt would make a politician blush. I also maintain that repeal is the best hope Americans have of getting out from under such an oppressive law. It’s going to take a Republican supermajority laced with a healthy dose of conservatives in both Chambers to do it. Keep that in mind come November if the healthcare law is upheld. Having said the above, I do have one solid prediction that surprises me. Breyer will vote to overturn. I base my forecast on things I heard him say over the years. Don’t get me wrong here. Breyer is big government liberal to be sure, but I think upholding Hillarycare II will prove to be a bridge too far for him.
Im not alone in my view of politics and the healthcare bill: Hill Poll: Voters expect justices personal views to decide health case By Sam Baker - 03/26/12 05:00 AM ET http://thehill.com/polls/218005-hil...stices-personal-beliefs-to-decide-health-case This quote from Sam Bakers piece requires some clarification: It was Al Gore who went to the courts not Bush. Click on the video link and move cursor to 9:28 to hear Scalia: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4448191n Heres the link for the transcript and the second Scalia interview video: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290.shtml The fact that Gore initiated the court battle in Floridas Supreme Court did not stop Democrats from implying the SCOTUS jumped in without being invited when it backfired. After Gore lost to Bush, as he should have, the Left immediately howled the decision was purely political. Had the Court ruled for Gore Democrats like Waxman would be praising the Courts impartiality. NOTE: Bush won every recount in Florida while Gore only wanted the votes recounted in HIS three counties. The entire thing about hanging chads was surreal.
You may be right about Breyer, but a different consideration may be a factor. At the moment he has had the most obscure career of any modern member of the court and this would make him famous, especially if the opposing side consists of Kennedy, Ginzburg, Sotomayor and Kagan.
