retire at the end of a session, after all the decisions have been made. Why do you think she might retire early without completing the term ?

an obligation to write her opinion...

a prediction.

But that said ... How I wish liberals would take a page from the conservative play book. If it even looks like their presidential candidate will have a tough re-election fight, they retire early in that president's term; thereby giving him plenty of time to find and replace a conservative with an (even more) conservative.

She'll be on the side of the minority when the ruling is released.

The grandstanding is merely for the media and the political races in the 2nd half of the year.

The 5 justices controlling the court, have already decided how they're ruling.

What makes everyone think there is a chance this won't be overturned? Do you seriously think the right wing nutjobs on the court are suddenly going to have a change of beliefs?

Obamacare was on the chopping block the minute the justices agreed to hear the case. Soon it will become election fodder.

I'm just curious.

I'm not using any precedent. I am merely looking at the court.

You have 4 pure right wing facists, and then a swing vote, who is votes with that wing the majority of the time.

History is of no importance, where this group is concerned. Were you around in 2000? Historical precedent or even the laws of reason were thrown out the window in favor of political expediency.

Leaving the court by retirement would be a conscious decision. Something you have control over. I don't think any of them would...
But what if one of them dies, god forbid, (you're supposed to say that even if it's Thomas); now theirs only 8. A no decision becomes passable.
Now what would happen.

If only 8 justices remain to decide the case, the Court arguably could conclude that the case should be reheard after the vacancy is filled. But that virtually never happens. More likely, it issues a decision based on the judgment of the 8 remaining justices. If it comes out 5-3, the side with 5 wins. If it ends up 4-4, the decision below stands but is not deemed to have any precedential value and the same issue could be considered anew down the line. Indeed, in the case of a 4-4 tie, the court likely would issue a "per curiam" decision that simply states that the decisions below are affirmed and then individual justices (or groups thereof) might append concurrences or dissents.

As I understand it (and I'm definitely not positive about this), on the issue of the individual mandate, the appeal was brought by the adminstration of a lower court ruling that struck down the mandate. If I'm right, that means the effect of a 4-4 tie would be that the individual mandate is struck down. On the other hand, I believe that the appeal on the issue of severability was brought by the challengers of the law and if the court ends up in a 4-4 tie, the lower court ruling finding that the rest of the law (or most of it) is severable and continues in effect will be upheld.

BUt don't quote me on this. Its pretty confusing since the SCOTUS case actually consolidated appeals of three different lower court decisions and accepted certain issues from each.

Having read but not fully understood, all I can say is what the man in the funny velor shirt said...
I'm a programmer not a lawyer Jim.

I would think that the court would have to rehear the case, if necessary to resolve a tie.

The US cannot go on with this being law in some states and not in others, surely?

That's really why they were forced to take it - the split decisions in lower courts.

BTW 6-justices constitute a quorum. See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1 .

It won't be announced to the public until the end of the term. But it will all be a done deal by tomorrow at this time.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2012/03/29/justices_to_vote_quickly_on_health_care_case/