-- 19 of 21 constitutional law scholars surveyed by Bloomberg say Obamacare is constitutional, but most of them think the reactionary Rethuglican Supreme Court will strike part or all of it anyway;
-- James Fallows asks:
"How would you characterize a legal system that knowledgeable observers assume will not follow the law and instead will advance a particular party-faction agenda? That's how we used to talk about the Chinese courts when I was living there. Now it's how law professors are describing the Supreme Court of the John Roberts era."
-- Jonathan Cohn looks at the damage that could be done by five partisan "jurists"; and
-- E.J. Dionne wonders if we'll miss Obamacare if it's gone, and offers this:
"If the court does strike down the law, those concerned that criticisms of its ruling might undermine the 'legitimacy' of the judiciary should put their worries aside. Conservative justices long ago shattered the court’s standing as a nonpartisan, non-ideological actor in our governing system. That’s why recent surveys have found its approval rating on the decline."
See: Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, for starters. We'll have to see if Obamacare is added to that notorious list.
UPDATE: SCOTUS' mixed decision on Arizona immigration law. Is it too hopeful to note the reactionaries didn't vote in lockstep?
