Predicting the unpredictable

[Flanders]

A piece in The Washington Times says:

A curious thing about this week’s Supreme Court hearings on President Obama’s health care law is that while nobody doubts how the four Democrat-appointed justices will decide, there is no such certainty on how the Republican appointees will rule in the case, which will go a long way toward defining the scope and limits of government power in the 21st century.

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

Court's open-minded GOP appointees may give health care a chance - Washington Times

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:

Q: ) Experts say that this Supreme Court challenge is historic. Why so?

A: ) The case that's coming before the Supreme Court which challenges Congress's Affordable Care Act is undoubtedly a significant case. It's rare for a president's signature initiative to come before the Supreme Court and be challenged as unconstitutional.

Rejecting 'Obamacare' would be 'grave and profound'
By Chantal Valery | AFP – 12 hours ago

Rejecting 'Obamacare' would be 'grave and profound' - Yahoo! News Canada

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.

 

[Flanders]

I’m not alone in my view of politics and the healthcare bill:

Although voters want the court to strike the law, they don’t necessarily trust the justices’ motivations. Fifty-six percent of likely voters believe the justices are swayed by their own political beliefs, while just 27 percent believe they “make impartial decisions based on their reading of the Constitution.”

Skepticism about the justices relying on their political beliefs ran consistently among age, racial and philosophical categories, with a majority of whites (54 percent), blacks (59 percent), Republicans (56 percent), Democrats (59 percent), conservatives (54 percent), centrists (56 percent) and liberals (59 percent) expressing the same viewpoint.

Hill Poll: Voters expect justices’ personal views to decide health case
By Sam Baker - 03/26/12 05:00 AM ET

Hill Poll: Voters expect justices

This quote from Sam Baker’s piece requires some clarification:

Those findings could help bolster a point some Democrats have made about the healthcare ruling. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) told The Hill last week that “if the decision is 5-4, basically Republican versus Democratic appointees on the court, I think a lot of people will look at that as they did at [the Supreme Court decision to put President Bush in power],” Waxman said. “I’m sure they have on their minds that they don’t want to come across as looking political.”

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:

Justice Scalia On Life Part 1 - 60 Minutes - CBS News

Here’s the link for the transcript and the second Scalia interview video:

Justice Scalia On The Record - CBS News

The fact that Gore initiated the court battle in Florida’s 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 Court’s 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.