"Why the court will uphold Obamacare" - Robert Reich in Salon

[NRaleighLiberal]

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/27/why_the_court_will_uphold_obamacare/singleton//

"Predictions are always hazardous when it comes to the economy, the weather, and the Supreme Court. I won’t get near the first two right now, but I’ll hazard a guess on what the Court is likely to decide tomorrow: It will uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) by a vote of 6 to 3.

Three reasons for my confidence:

First, Chief Justice John Roberts is — or should be — concerned about the steadily-declining standing of the Court in the public’s mind, along with the growing perception that the justices decide according to partisan politics rather than according to legal principle. The 5-4 decision in Citizen’s United, for example, looked to all the world like a political rather than a legal outcome, with all five Republican appointees finding that restrictions on independent corporate expenditures violate the First Amendment, and all four Democratic appointees finding that such restrictions are reasonably necessary to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption. Or consider the Court’s notorious decision in Bush v. Gore."

snip.....

______________

here's hoping....

[Stuart G]

1. I am hoping too.

Certainly there is a chance the Court will uphold Healthcare Reform. Maybe just one of the Republicans care about "health" of
the people here.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. Here's hoping, too; but ...

As to Reich's first reason:

First, Chief Justice John Roberts is — or should be — concerned about the steadily-declining standing of the Court in the public’s mind, along with the growing perception that the justices decide according to partisan politics rather than according to legal principle. The 5-4 decision in Citizen’s United, for example, looked to all the world like a political rather than a legal outcome, with all five Republican appointees finding that restrictions on independent corporate expenditures violate the First Amendment, and all four Democratic appointees finding that such restrictions are reasonably necessary to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption. Or consider the Court’s notorious decision in Bush v. Gore.

I suspect (hope) he wrote this before the Montana Decision that affirmed C/U.

[frazzled]

3. From your lips to God's ears, Bob

I'm frankly not so optimistic that Roberts cares.

[longship]

4. I may overdose tonight here at DU. Another bag of popcorn.

Thank goodness I am well stocked up. But by tomorrow I may be sick of it. Too bad the last Star Trek movie was so bad.

In the meantime...

[Jim Lane]

5. Correction re Citizens United

Reich writes: "The 5-4 decision in Citizen’s United, for example, looked to all the world like a political rather than a legal outcome, with all five Republican appointees finding that restrictions on independent corporate expenditures violate the First Amendment, and all four Democratic appointees finding that such restrictions are reasonably necessary to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption."

At the time of the Citizens United decision, the Court had six Justices appointed by Republicans and only three appointed by Ginsburg. One of the four dissenters was Stevens, who was appointed by Ford.

Reich's mistake is understandable, since by today's standards Ford would be much too far to the left to get anywhere in the Republican Party.

[Zyzafyx]

6. I wish I could share his optimism

But r anyway

[DCBob]

7. I think SCOTUS will uphold but defer judgement on the mandate..

until an actual real-life case is brought before them.

[Rosanna Lopez]

8. Expected to come at 10:15 AM

This site predicts that the ruling will be at about 10:15 am, after a series of smaller cases are released first.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/anticipating-the-health-care-decision-in-plain-english/#more-147840