The Supreme Court Has Been Getting Along Nicely. What's that Mean for ObamaCare?
At The Huffington Post, Supreme Court reporter Mike Sacks has a very interesting take on what the Court's recent decisions may reveal about the upcoming vote on the constitutionality of ObamaCare's individual mandate. After first noting that the justices have achieved "unanimity in major cases that pit religious liberty against civil rights, Republicans against Democrats, and law enforcement efficiency against personal privacy," which might portend at least some similar agreement on the health care law, Sacks wonders if maybe this is all just the calm before the storm:
There remains the chance that Roberts' work this term has simply served to collect enough good will to spend on an explosive second half headlined by the demise of the individual mandate. Supreme Court history is heavy on early-term unanimity and late-term divisiveness.
I remain unconvinced that there are five Supreme Court votes against the individual mandate, but I have no doubt that we're in for some serious divisiveness.