[stevelackner]

If you are interested in the hyperlinks to sources and other articles found in the article above, please see the original website.

[Major Matt Mason]

If I'm Kennedy (and he would appear to be the deciding vote), I've already made up my mind on how I would vote on this. Between Obama "dissing" the SC justices and Kagan lying about her non-involvement with Obamacare, I vote it down simply to stick it in the liberals piehole (but with the proper jurisprudence, of course).

[Rummyfan]

Where is Chief Justice Roberts? He should tell her in no uncertain terms she has to recuse herself. People are getting fed up with effectively being disenfranchised by these so-called solons.

[StonyBurk]

Kagan and all who entrusted her with a lifetime position within the despotic branch ought be IMPEACHED but will not
and for that national sin we will receive the reward that is meet.

[Roklok]

Supreme Court Justices playing politics! Who would have ever thought it would be like this? Obama appointees are pure political hacks.

[InterceptPoint]

Your argument vis a vis a 4-4 tie in the voting for Arizona and Obamacare is spot on. That’s exactly how it would go and your rationale for the Kagan/Arizona recusal strategy is as well.

But there is a problem with a 4-4 tie as I understand it. I believe, as you stated, that the lower court ruling would stand and thus Obamacare would be ruled unconstitutional. But in this specific case that ruling would only apply to the 27 states involved in the suit.

Is that correct?

If so, what happens when the Supreme Court accepts one of the other cases coming up from the Circuit courts where the ruling has been favorable to the administration and we get the same 4-4 tie. What a mess.

What do you think? Could this happen?

BTW, I expect the Supremes to rule against Obamacare but also against Arizona. Just my guess as to how it will all turn out.