Skip to comments.Ruth Ginsburg: Expect “sharp disagreement” in SCOTUS rulings
Posted on 06/17/2012 6:37:00 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Sometimes, if you have nothing to say, it’s probably best to say nothing at all. This is an old saw which was apparently lost on Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg this week, when she decided to take time out of her busy schedule and talk about the court’s upcoming decisions --- including the one on the Obamacare mandate --- by not really saying anything.
With a wry smile, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg laid waste Friday to all those rumors about the fate of the Affordable Care Act in the Supreme Court.
Those who know dont talk. And those who talk dont know, she quipped Friday night at a conference hosted by the American Constitution Society at the Capital Hilton.
Ginsburg said she was responding to a "steady stream of rumors and fifth-hand accounts" about the court's deliberations on the law.
Careful not to tip her hand on the courts ruling expected in the next two weeks Ginsburg described the oral arguments in the case as unprecedented for the number of press conferences, prayer circles, protests and counterprotests that occurred on the courthouse steps.
This does confirm one thing, however, which some of us have debated from time to time. The Justices absolutely do keep track of their own press coverage and are aware of the ebb and flow in the tide of public opinion. Lady Justice may be blind, but she definitely has access to cable TV.
A second quote from the event let another hint slip through the wall of silence.
The 21 remaining decisions, she said, were many of the most controversial cases that the court reviewed this term.
It is likely that the sharp disagreement rate will go up next week and the week after, she said.
That one shouldn’t be too hard to translate. Yet again, rather than finding some clear, general consensus on what the Constitution of the United States actually says and how it applies to the cases in question, we can expect yet another series of inflammatory rulings on high profile cases where the court splits 5-4 along partisan lines. (A concept which you might think most people would abhor in a body which is ostensibly non-partisan in nature.) Public faith in the court has been falling and may soon bottom out in the realm of the favorability of Congress.
Anthony Kennedy… I’m sorry, I mean the court… finishes ruling on all of these cases, what will the President and Democrats in general do if a significant portions of the rulings go against them? They have no idea.
Congressional Democrats who wrote Barack Obamas health care plan into law say theyre getting virtually no guidance from the White House on how to deal with the fallout if the Supreme Court overturns any part of the law.
There have been no meetings, no phone calls and no paper exchanged with the administration, according to Democratic lawmakers and staff. The top aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, David Krone and John Lawrence, did meet with the White Houses chief congressional lobbyist, Rob Nabors, last week to discuss a variety of issues.
But Nabors didnt provide any information on how the president plans to approach the courts ruling, according to sources familiar with the meeting.
This is a bit of an odd duck to begin with, as political news coverage goes. What the White House or congressional Democrats plan to “do” if Obamacare is struck down is pretty much irrelevant, beyond what sort of excuses to make, who to blame and how to try to spin it. Once the Supremes speak the party is pretty much over. There is no higher appeal… at least until a significant number of them are gone and replaced with a new slate of partisan bulldogs.
My prediction? I still think they’re going to punt on Obamacare, claiming either that the law hasn’t ripened to the point where anyone can demonstrate damages from it or that none of the plaintiffs have standing to bring the case in the first place. But if they do rule definitively one way or the other, it’s going to bring the long, hot, dog days of summer into the political kitchen well ahead of schedule.
I think they might want a ruling which strikes down ObamaCare to be issued on the last day, so they can be out of DC when the sniveling by Barry and his Clown Posse begins.
Quote “what kind of stupidity is that?”
Not stupidity at all. The author understands well the cowardice of the Supreme Court and especially Anthony Kennedy aka “the flipper.”
She probably fell asleep during the deliberations.
The author understands well the cowardice of the Supreme Court and especially Anthony Kennedy aka the flipper.
Illogical -again, if they were going to do any of those things then they would have simply decided to NOT hear this case.
.....along with a face like a ripped boot.
Justice Ginsberg’s statement is extraordinarily unprofessional. Not one single justice should utter a sound until after this ruling is announced. To have said anything shows a lack of respect for the Court, the U.S. Constitution, and this country! This is appalling, and I hope that Chief Justice Roberts reins this person in!
i don’t know if the “wry smile” was one of being pleased and coy or one of being mysterious and coy.
i didn’t see it myself so I can’t judge.
but i doubt it will be found constitutional. the mandate will be unconstitutional and the entire law will fall based on the intentional lack of severability.
if not, however, the prospects for an obama loss increase. America hates obamacare. Further, the intensity of their hatred is unbounded.
so while i’d rather have it ALL struck down, the alternative is not so bad IF it works out a win in all 3 brances...
“I would love to see the court rule that because Congress failed to read the bill and debate it in its entirety ...that alone is enough to strike it down.
It did make me smirk that during the hearings something similar was alluded too ...”
I must admit to wondering how it is congressmen can illegitimately sign off on something they know not what on behalf of their constitutions. Some might call it irresponsible while others examining the fact that they are Representative might call it illegitimate fraud.
“I just wish people like her would learn to take their toys and go home. She has enjoyed a full life as a justice, now I wish she would retire (hopefully while there is a republican in office).”
As I’ve been saying for a while now, logically its only a matter of time before the power of the Federal court becomes recognized as such that people also recognize the ulitily of “forcefully retiring” “justices” they don’t care for while their guy is in power.
Why go after a president he is only there for 8 years at most, a “Federal judge” sits with dictatorial power for 40.
Were I a federal “judge” id limit my power to vetoing Federal acts. No demands, no state level activity, just federal acts.
After the what the same so called federal “justices” said about the Obamacare abomination in the oral arguments imaginary if they were to edict that Washington can do this.
What would it say about the Constitution, and specifically the ability of the Federal “justices” to protect any part of it? What would that mean for what we have to do to defend our rights?
In my mind that could have only one meaning: It means that the Federal employees in black robes intend to do nothing about the lawlessness of their employers and as such if we are to have any hope of retaining any of our rights we have no choice but to act without them.
This of course is tantamount to the acknowledgement by the Federal court of either the death of Federal Constitutional order or the implisic requirement that it be enforced by more than just the Employees of those bound by the Federal Constitution.
Not illogical at all, simply based on observation. There have been plenty of cases where the Court has taken briefing, held oral arguments and then punted on justiciability.