Posted on 06/21/2012 3:31:32 PM PDT by NYer
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 21, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) - The U.S. Supreme Court has pushed back the hotly-anticipated ruling on the federal health care law, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disclosed that the Court was “sharply divided” over the question - but gave no hint as to the outcome.
Although media were preparing for a ruling on Thursday, the high court was silent on the health care lawsuit, leaving Monday as the next possible date for a decision.
Court watchers have said that the justices’ reactions during the three days of hearings in March gave little indication of where the Court would land on the health care dispute.
The case is complicated by three major points of disagreement: whether the mandate forcing Americans to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, whether the law could stand without the mandate, and whether its expansion of Medicaid is within the boundaries of federal power. A fourth possibility, that the case would be deemed immature, is thought to be more remote.
Meanwhile, Justice Ginsburg on Friday commented on the High Court’s unusually heavy case load and hinted that the nine justices were pushing the most difficult decisions, including the health care law, to the last minute of their session, which finishes at the end of the month.
“As one may expect, many of the most controversial cases remain pending,” Ginsburg said. “So, it is likely that the sharp disagreement rate will go up next week and the week after.”
Ginsburn also conceded that the health care decision would be an historic one - at least, judging by the amount of attention it has garnered.
“Some have described the controversy as unprecedented,” she said, “and they may be right if they mean the number of press conferences, prayer circles, protests, counter protests, going on outside the court while oral argument was under way inside.”
Yet the answer they all sought, said Ginsburg, was not about to leak.
“At the Supreme Court, those who know don’t talk,” she said. “And those who talk don’t know.”
If the entire law is overturned, the ruling would mark a massive victory both for the health care law’s political opponents as well as faith-based leaders struggling to overturn the law’s preventive services insurance mandate, which is set to force religious groups to pay for contraceptives and drugs many consider abortifacient by August 2013.
An Associated Press-GfK Poll conducted June 14-18 found that only one-third of Americans support the health care law, while 47 percent opposed it. Nearly twice as many said they strongly opposed the bill as those who strongly supported it, 32-17 percent.
The spiking the ball thing?
yes.
Wow, I hope he’s right. I’m off to the Prayer meeting to Kick-off the Fortnight for Religious Freedom.
We can use some good news.
This article is nonsense.
The decision was not “pushed back”. It simply has not yet been announced.
The Court may or may not be “sharply divided” (whatever that means). We cannot know.
And there is no reason to think that the divisions on the Court (if any) have had any effect on the schedule for announcing the decision.
Other than that, it’s a fine article.
How does anyone know that?
It's my belief that Monday, the official last day of the SCOTUS term, we'll get the Arizona decision as well as 2 or 3 or 4 more... but not healthScare. There WILL be one additional day ADDED to the SCOTUS calendar, for whatever opinions remain... PLUS healthScare. No telling which day the added day will be, but figure they have no compelling reason to stay once it's announced, so might as well make it early to mid-week rather than later in the week.
The decision was made a long time ago. The opinions have been writtem. It is just a matter of timing as to whem the decision will be handed down. It has to be next week—Monday or Thursday.
The decision is already made. They are just waiting to get their opinions in order and are probably squabling over the wording.
But they voted and made the decision within a week or two of the hearing.
I hope they knock the whole thing down...it is what they should do if they themselves were going to be true to their oaths to the constitution to bear true allegiance to it. But we already know that there are at least two, and maybe three, who care not a whit what the Constitution says or the clear meaning of those who wrote it. They are more concerned about “modern” juris prudence and opinions and have proven themselves more than willing to rull accordingly, throwing the Constitution to the curb in the process.
IMHO, such Justices should be impeached and kicked off the court...and I know there is a process to do that very similar to impeaching a President where the House votes to impeach (or indict) and the Senate votes to remove. We just need representatives with the will to do so.
America at the Crossroads of History
http://www.jeffhead.com/crossroads.htm
Heard an interview with a SCOTUS lawyer and former SC clerk, who explained what is going on here.
The decision has been written, and will not change. What is happening now is the justices are reviewing and wordsmithing the language of the majority and (I presume) dissenting opinions. This comes down to nuance and personal privilege, i.e. “I can’t agree with the third sentence in section 9, para. 21 where it says...” And once a change is agreed to, it’s got to be floated by all the other justices who may not accept the changes, and so back around the process goes. He said this is always done but with very high profile cases like this, the nits that are picked become tinier and the level of tolearnce goes down - in other words it will go on until the hard deadline says “Enough!” and they will then wrap it and release the opinion.
Sounds perfectly credible to me...all the foibles of human nature still exist even at the SCOTUS level.
SCOTUS will be kicking it in the Maldives by the time the decision is announced.
Come again? The whole country is "listening" in one way or another. Isn't it? You are. If you are going to post nonsense, please be kind enough to include an IMO or something.
yeah. fortunately, future intimidation tends to backfire with true conservatives (i.e., works against feckless liberals, statists and rino/cinos).
my big fear is the existence of wickard v. filbern.
we gotta hope that justice stephens (sp?) is not a fearful man or that he is at least principled.
They would not be discussing point two if the answer to point one was No.
justice stephens?
It would seem to me that if the decision went her way she would not characterize it as divisive.
Or have you and your 3 lefwing loony pals devised a way to blow up SCOTUS until you have a majority?
FU Kathleen Gilbert! You should be fired! That article, and headline, are absolute garbage!
I think this is bad news, because it sounds like they are trying to compromise with the lefties to try to make it seem that the supreme court is unified. Bad for freedom.
“kicking it in the Maldives”
Muslims have been revoting there.
Oh. You didn’t mean the actual Maldives.
I don't know. It does appear to be nonsense to me also. I can find anything corroborating this story. It sure seems like some of the other news sites would be quoting this justice. Looks to be made up nonsense to me. Anyone else find a credible source to back this up?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.