"if we're talking about the law of the land and our compliance with it"

That's a pretty big IF - this is a bit of a warning imo.

If she actually thinks 6-3 is a possibility, I'd like what she's smoking.

Who are the 6 then? Besides the obvious 4, Kennedy and who else are voting in favor?

She's getting ready for the fall campaign. Since when does a politician's word mean ANYTHING anyways?

There's some speculation that he'll join the majority so he can write the opinion.

back in 2010 she responded to a question about its constitutionality by asking, "are you serious? are you serious?" The incredulity in her voice seems pretty sincere to me. I hear what you're saying about politicians' word, but this doesn't fit that scenario imo.

The "liberal" wing will support federal government government power and unlimited government and 1-2 of the radical regressives will go along because they support corporate profits, too big to fail, and unlimited government.

The only wild card to me is whether the Republicans on the Court would think that their ruling would actually be enough to cost the President the election. I think if they do, they will strike it down. They have shown themselves again and again to put partisan politics above just about anything. Otherwise, I think corporate profits will guide Roberts to uphold it.

"Fascist law"!

Hahahahahahaha!!!! That's funnier than crap.

"Didnt she predict the HCR bill would include a PO at one point before it was voted on?"

...predicted that the HCR bill would pass.

yes the bill passed, but was it really "reform"?

One poster said, the chief. Could it be any other?

Well, I think we know how Scalia and Thomas will vote. That only leaves Alito and Roberts as possibles.

I like the argument for Roberts, he wants to write the opinion.

She's a clever one, isn't she?

But here is where the logic stands.

Either five four against

Or if Kennedy decides to vote in favor, this s one of those cases, the senior Justice on the majority writes the decision...this means Roberts sides with the Majority. This case will mark the court.

PB

"She's talking out her ass and whistling passed the graveyard just like the President is."

...said the same thing when the President said the health care bill wasn't "dead."

We will get either a 5-4 sweeping opinion with Kennedy as the swing. This will lessen the power of the chief justice.

Or, get the Pelosi prediction with an opinion written by the chief justice to be as narrowly written as possible and give him a signature case to pin his name to for generations.

Or a 5-4 defeat of the law which will lessen the public trust in the court even further and create chaos. In a 5-4 ruling which throws out the mandate you can be sure they will throw out the entire thing and tell Congress to fix it-which of course they will be unable to do.

My prediction is a 5-4 ruling which invalidates the mandate and throws out the entire law. This should (hopefully) fully engage the left and those who don't pay attention to re-elect the President and give him a Congress that can pass the public option, thereby ending this game we are playing just to keep HMO's in business.

Scalia already indicated how he would vote against this law.
Thomas has to vote against it because his wife has been campaigning against it for the last 2½ years.
And Alito just got there, so he's going to be against it so he can assure everyone that he runs around with that he is indeed a neocon.

The rest of the gang will vote for it because it is in the best interests of the American people.

The only wildcards are the chief justice and Kennedy. Not so much the chief Justice though-He may well go where Kennedy lands.

But since when does the Supreme court go for the "best interests of the American People"?

I can most assuredly state to you that that is not always the case. I wish it was but the conservatives on the court see things differently as to what those interests are.