[Arthurio]

I wonder if Ginsberg might surprise us. Not only that she was awake during oral arguments, but because she was posing the question of the Court doing a 'salvage job' (which ain't their job) on the Evilcare bill. That suggested to me that she had already either viewed the mandate as unconstitutional or had realized most of her colleagues did. Could a moment of rationality prod her to choose logic over ideology?

There can be "horse trading" during this process. For example, Ginsburg and another liberal could vote to kill the mandate in exchange for Roberts and Kennedy agreeing that the bill is severable

[lag along]

I read a book by Sandra day Conner in which she talks about the court always keeping an eye on the public support for the “Supremacy of court decisions.” her point was that the court must maintain the “aura” of being the sole arbitrator of what is constitutional since that role is not one that it was given in the constitution. The constitution does not provide that the supreme court is the final word..