Will the U.S. Supreme Court really rule unconstitutional a law that provides for health care for all Americans, whether they've been sick previously or been too poor to afford insurance premiums but not poor enough for federal assistance? Here's what UCLA law professor Adam Winkler says in the Huffington Post about the court:
... the justices on today's Court have shown little inclination to avoid flexing their muscles on important political issues of the day. There are few stronger trends in the Supreme Court than judicial assertiveness. A Court that could decide a disputed presidential election in Bush v. Gore; unleash Citizens United on our electoral process; and repeatedly wade into presidential war powers can be expected to have no hesitancy deciding the fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. So when the justices breezily ignored the plain language of the Anti-Injunction Act on Monday, it was predictable. The Court wants to decide all of the major issues in American politics, including this.
No matter what the ruling, expected this summer, there will be huge political fallout. It could hurt Obama if the Republicans can convince the country that he and the Democrats were pushing a socialist agenda. Or it could hurt the Republicans if the American people, now enjoying certain rights under the Affordable Care Act, lose them. Here's the New York Times on the politics, a Washington Post story on the third day of the Supreme Court hearing and here's a Q and A from the Post on what happens next.