Scotusblog.com is live-blogging this, and they just described the procedure. The court will convene at 10am. Then they will be in session, and one justice will read a summary of one ruling and another justice another ruling. ObamaCare will probably be last, because the room will get noisy after that, as reporters scramble out to place phone calls.

Plus I think justices can choose to read dissents.

So in all likelihood, we're talking about 10:30.

Stolen Valor Act Ruling Posted: Here.

Posted by: Ace at 06:00 AM | Comments (202)
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.

Thanks to RDBrewer.

Some great flashbacks via Drudge.

UPDATE BELOW THE FOLD [lauraw}: The kind of anticipatory mood Moron Nation is in, this morning. more...

Posted by: Ace at 05:09 AM | Comments (427)
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

Check out Reason's compilation of temper-tantrum headlines:

"Why Media's Health Care Reform Coverage Was Even Worse Than You Thought"

"Health care reform trajectory won't be stopped by Supreme Court ruling"

"Insurers Seek to Soften Their Image, No Matter How Court Rules on Health Act"

"No Matter How the Court Rules, Healthcare Benefits Will Remain Key"

"Healthcare Futurist: Supreme Court Can't Stop Healthcare Reform"

"Obama could target Supreme Court if health-care law falls"

"The Supreme CourtÂ’s Lurch To The Right (CHARTS)"

"George WashingtonÂ’s individual mandates"

"Health Care and the Supremes: Why the Right Has Already Won"

"Supreme Court is No Longer Part of the Solution"

"Are we headed toward another court-packing crisis?"

"Justice Scalia must resign"

Allah's Quotes of the Day from last night were especially good.

Gabe linked Tim Carney's great piece below; also worthy is Jonathan V. Last's.

When Democrats lose, however, they tend to place the blame a little higher. The Supreme Court is rigged. The election was stolen by Diebold voting machines. After John Kerry lost in 2004, Democrats snickered about an electoral map showing the “real America” being composed of the West Coast and Northeast. The rest of the map — the red states Bush carried — was dubbed “Jesusland.” The inference being that the real problem was with the American people.

All of which is why, facing the prospect of losing the Obamacare case, the leftÂ’s first instinct hasnÂ’t been to blame a bad law. Or bad lawyering. Or even just bad luck. No, to the liberal mind there are no bad outcomes; only broken systems. (In the Washington Post, Jonathan Turley claimed the very possibility Obamacare might be struck down suggested we should rethink the structure of the high court. He proposes we start by installing 10 more justices.)

And so, later this week liberal Democrats will condemn the high court as a body no longer fit to adjudicate our nationÂ’s laws. It will have to be reformed and remade before any American, anywhere, can sleep soundly.

We see this more and more, and without any shame-- When Democrats lose, their first impulse is to make it illegal for Republicans to win. They begin examining the ways in which "systems" failed to produce results they sought, and then "reform" those systems so that they can only produce liberal victories.

Obviously, this is antithetical to democracy and fair play. When a team in the NFL has a great running back, its rivals do not rush to change the rules to make running the ball illegal.

And yet that is what the Democrats keep doing, again and again.

And... The campaign against the "politicization" of the court continues. As Instapundit puts it-- Democrat Leaders to Supreme Court: If you don't vote our way, you're being political.

Posted by: Ace at 04:06 AM | Comments (214)
Post contains 468 words, total size 3 kb.

Now, I've got to say right off the bat: I don't know what the outcome of the case will be and neither does anybody else except the justices, their clerks, and a half-dozen other people. What follows is merely a reply to liberal idiocy, not an implied prediction of the outcome of the case. We may not win.

In their effort to preemptively attack the credibility of the Supreme Court in general and Chief Justice Roberts in particular, liberals have started spreading a stupid and easily refutable lie.

It started with that James Fallows character who claimed the Supreme Court was about to perpetrate a coup. He claimed that Justices Roberts and Alito in particular, “actively second-guess and re-do existing law.” Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's chief law analyst who completely shit the bed predicting that no lower court would even pretend that the Obamacare lawsuits had merit, also oozed this lie, claiming that the Roberts Court has been "eager" to overturn legislatures. This lie was ultimately repeated by Politico's dim and shallow Roger Simon and now it is ubiquitous and unchallenged among liberals.

Yes, in about 48 hours liberals managed to cook up this claim and now they're all scurrying around repeating it like a bunch of lemmings. There's just one problem: it is completely untrue.

This is not a matter of opinion. We can actually count how often various Courts have "re-done existing law" and "overturned legislatures." And such a count reveals that the Roberts Court doesn't overturn as many precedents as its three predecessors. The Roberts Court doesn't even come close to overturning the number of laws that its three predecessors did.

Here's the data on the first five years of the Roberts Court (gleaned from this NYTimes infographic):

(1) The Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts overturned precedent decisions at an average rate of 2.7, 2.8 and 2.4 per term, respectively. By contrast, the Roberts Court overturned precedent only at an average rate of 1.6 per term.

(2) The Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts overturned laws at an average rate of 7.9, 12.5, and 6.2 laws per term. By contrast, the Roberts Court struck down only 3 laws per term.

Just three laws per term! Far, far from being "eager" to overturn legislatures, as hack Toobin dribbled, and obviously, indisputably playing no unusual role in "second-guessing laws," as Fallows alarmingly squeaked, the Roberts Court has been a model of restraint. Restraint is, naturally, one of Chief Justice Roberts' well-known characteristics and it was remarked upon during his confirmation hearings. One could even creditably call the Roberts Court the most restrained, incrementalist Court of the modern era. (I assure you, these numbers have not changed appreciably in the past two years.)

Should the mandate be overturned today, liberals will repeat their lie endlessly in order to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and to tarnish the Chief Justice's good name. You know better. Do not believe this sad, angry lie. And do not let some foolish lemming repeat it in your presence. The truth is that the Roberts Court has been unusually restrained in overturning laws when compared to its predecessors.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:30 AM | Comments (68)
Post contains 552 words, total size 3 kb.

Happy 'This Changes Everything!' Day.

There are new NBC/Marist polls showing Obama and Romney within the margin of error in Michigan, New Hampshire, and North Carolina.

Tim Carney has yet another amazing column this week, this time on the Left's "Strategic Epistemic Closure."

A German regional court, demonstrating neither sound judgment nor historical awareness, held that circumcision on religious grounds is abuse, for which doctors can be criminally charged.

Google is out with a new $199 tablet, the Nexus 7. "7" because it's a seven-inch tablet, more like the Amazon Kindle Fire than a full-blown iPad.

Sen. Brown (R-MA) has joined calls for AG Holder's resignation. Two House Democrats have already announced that they will vote for holding AG Holder in contempt, and up to 29 more are expected.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:51 AM | Comments (102)
Post contains 137 words, total size 2 kb.

Dearborn MI: Still De Facto Sharia-compliant

Sure you still have freedom of religion and speech in Dearborn but just don't try and actually use them there.

Now I'm no a fan of public evangelizing - especially involving a megaphone - but it is Constitutionally-protected speech. But don't go looking for the Dearborn police department to protect your First Amendment rights - to the contrary they will roust and arrest you if your free speech upsets the Muslim locals.

The exact same thing happened two years ago in Dearborn and it cost the city $100,000 in damages but I guess they learn slow.

Meanwhile on the positive side for the morons scientists have now proven that two glasses of wine a day 'makes your life better'

Drinking a couple of glasses of wine each day improves your quality of life, researchers say.

They found that those who drink in moderation had better scores in an index that measures factors including dexterity, emotion, mobility and the ability to understand than those who abstained completely.

U.S. researchers from the Boston University School of Medicine studied 5,404 people at the age of 50, and continued to observe them over a follow-up period.

...They found that these regular moderate drinkers - those who consumed no more than 14 drinks a week and no more than three a day for women and four a day for men - scored highest in each section of the Health Utilities Index.

And from Stuff Benjamin Franklin Actually Said Part IV, 3rd edition:

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:04 PM | Comments (622)
Post contains 1129 words, total size 12 kb.

I kept citing her remark that the Court must decide if a bad stalk of broccoli can be cut away, or if the entire bunch must be discarded, for the proposition that she's tipped her hand, that the mandate is already found unconstitutional, and now the question shifts to severability.

Commenter Richard points out that's not all she said -- that's just all I saw quoted. In fact, she reels off all of the questions you'd imagine the Court is considering:

The three cases challenging the constitutionality of the Health Care Act present four questions: First, does Congress have the authority under Article I of the Constitution (the Commerce Clause or the power to tax and spend for the general welfare) to enact the so-called individual mandate?

Second, if the individual mandate-requiring the purchase of insurance or payment of a penalty-is unconstitutional, must the entire Act fall invalid?

Or may the mandate be chopped, like a head of broccoli, from the rest of the Act?

Third, does the Act's expansion of Medicaid exceed Congress' spending power?

Fourth, the big question, inviting the answer everyone is waiting for: Do federal courts lack jurisdiction to entertain a pre-enforcement challenge to the individual mandate in light of the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867.45 That Act prohibits "any person" from suing the federal government to restrain "the assessment or collection of any tax."

Transcript of the remarks here.

Those are simply the four questions they certified for review -- the very four questions they had oral arguments on.

That tells us nothing at all.

Sorry. I just saw this one bit quoted and thought it was all she said. She didn't. She simply reiterated the questions certified for Supreme Court review.

Obviously, all conclusions based on my faulty premise are weakened.

Thanks to Richard J. for correcting me.

Eh, damnit.

I started to say in the comments, "Doesn't anyone else realize how incredibly important this quote is?"

Well, no. Because the full quote reveals absolutely nothing at all.

Posted by: Ace at 05:46 PM | Comments (104)
Post contains 349 words, total size 2 kb.

No link; screw 'em.

Democrats to SCOTUS: Don't even think about it

A bit late in the game for "warnings," isn't it? Dudes, the opinion was at the printer days ago. The conference vote was like two months ago. The opinions were finished, edited, and proofed like three weeks ago.

...

“Probably the worst outcome we could see is a 5-4 decision,” said Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.). “I think that would go a long way to confirming this growing belief in the gut of the American people that the Supreme Court no longer cares so much about the constitution; it cares more about politics.”

For months, party leaders have publicly insisted that the court would uphold the law in its entirety. But now Democrats are shifting gears, warning the public of what would be lost if the court strikes it down.

Notice the shift. I mentioned this yesterday, with Obama making the same tactical shift -- laying down a campaign theme of running against a supposedly politicized, radical Supreme Court.

If Democrats are saying "the worst thing" would be a 5-4 law voiding the entirety of the law-- including all those supposedly good things, like insurance for "children" and closing the donut hole -- do you get why I am suspecting that maybe "the worst thing" is precisely the thing that's happened?

Earlier I speculated, meekly, that maybe we'd have 7-2 in favor of voiding the mandate itself, with only a 5-4 decision in favor of voiding the entirety of the law.

That was a bit of speculation based on Ginsberg's statement that severability was the name of the game. Perhaps there was a larger minority to strike the mandate, with the real battle, the contentiously close one, over full void or partial void.

That was speculation.

But notice how Democratic talking points are aligning to shift into that posture -- to not contest the mandate ruling so much, but a 5-4 ruling for a complete overturn, about the donut hole and such things.

I checked my old blogging on this issue. This was from the day after oral arguments on ObamaCare, I think specifically about severability.

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

I'd forgotten that -- Kennedy thought that if parts of the law were going down, it ought to all go down.

Let me quote Ginsberg again. From Politico, June 15. Just, what, twelve days ago?

Ginsburg noted that one ACA-related question the court must decide is whether the whole law must fall if the individual mandate is unconstitutional — “or may the mandate be chopped, like a head of broccoli, from the rest of it?”

Must decide.

The court has no reason to even reach that question if the Mandate (or Medicaid expansion) is upheld.

That is a question that is only reached if a majority finds one or more provisions of ObamaCare unconstitutional. Courts do not decide hypothetical, or moot, questions.

If ObamaCare is constitutional as written, there is no question of severability to be discussed at all.

Either Ginsberg is lying here -- deliberately putting out disinformation -- or the court decided that the mandate is unconstitutional, and the big question is "What stands or falls, given that?"

Now, it's possible there's a split decision, of course. Some kind of 7-2 against the mandate, and 5-4 to keep the bulk of ObamaCare (or 5-4 to get rid of all it).

But given that Kennedy -- the suspected flip-flopping faint-heart -- seemed to be of the mind that if one part of a comprehensive, complicated, intertwined scheme should fall, it all must fall -- it sure does seem to me we're talking about a complete overturn.

7-2 to void the mandate, 5-4 to overturn the law completely.

People fall in love with their own predictions. I'm now doing that. And I'm finding, as people do, only evidence to support my new, outta-my-ass prediction.

Guilty.

But be that as it may: I have convinced myself.

The main question is not about the mandate. That is decided. It's unconstitutional, and there are more than five conservative votes for that proposition.

Thus, the political tactical shift here is on to the question of whether those right-wingers should have voided it all, including the wonderful parts of it, like closing the donut hole.

I may be crazy, but what the hell. I only have to be crazy for 13 1/2 more hours until we find out if I'm crazy or so sane you can't even stand it.

The Problem With My Prediction: My prediction explains all the evidence. All of the evidence is, at least, not contrary to my prediction.

The problem is, I can't exclude other possibilities that also fit all the evidence. Which is what you really have to do to be confident of a conclusion -- not just prove that your solution fits the pieces of the puzzle, but that no other solution fits as well.

So, this is half baked. My prediction does fit -- but others do too.

But Ginsberg's quote is potent. Unless she's lying to the public -- which is not part of her job; secrecy does not require disinformation through affirmative deception -- then she's saying the Big Question is severablility.

Alternately: Perhaps 5-4 against the mandate, but then 6-3 the other way, on finding that most of the law can survive.

That would explain Democrats shifting the talking points to those bad 5-4 decisions. 5-4, horribly partisan. 6-3, perfectly awesomesauce.

And in this telling: Ginsberg would have stressed that part of the ruling because that's the part she won on. She didn't talk about the part she lost, but rather the part she won.

Byron York: Why Is Obama Now Only Pimping The Small-Bore Initiatives In ObamaCare? Good question, thanks for asking it.

During the run-up to passage of the national health care law, there was a furious debate among Democrats over whether President Obama should pursue a far-reaching, universal-coverage plan, or whether he should accept a series of piecemeal reforms that would extend coverage to some, but not all, Americans who donÂ’t have health insurance.

Obama chose to go big, and he won. But now, as Obamacare hangs in the balance before the Supreme Court, the president is defending his signature achievement as if it were the set of smaller, piecemeal reforms that he once rejected.

In his recent campaign appearances, Obama has defended Obamacare for its ban on insurance companies denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions; for its provision to allow adult children to stay on their parents’ plan until age 26; and for its expansion of prescription drug coverage. Each of those measures, Obama says, was “the right thing to do.” Only once in his most recent appearances has Obama even mentioned the main feature of Obamacare, that is, its scheme to extend health care coverage to more than 30 million currently-uncovered Americans.

Mandate out, so now stress the surviving parts of the law? Or the parts that didn't survive, but which are politically popular, and hence can be used in a campaign?

The unpopular mandate can't be used in a campaign, after all.

Posted by: Ace at 04:43 PM | Comments (309)
Post contains 1361 words, total size 8 kb.

Headline 1 (no link, screw 'em):

GOP Plans for ObamaCare: "Nothing"

That's their front page headline. Inside, we see the main headline for the article:

GOP in no rush to legislate if ACA goes down

Republicans still have only one thing in mind when it comes to President Barack ObamaÂ’s health care law: full repeal.

If the Supreme Court wholly or partially strikes down the law on Thursday, House Republicans won’t rush to pass a bill that allows young adults under 26 to stay on their parents’ insurance. They won’t pass legislation forcing insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions. And the gap in drug coverage that requires seniors to pay more out of pocket — the so-called donut hole — won’t immediately be closed.

Never mind that those are some of the most popular provisions in the health care law — Republicans will be in no rush to pass any health care legislation besides a straight repeal measure after the Supreme Court rules. They’re going to let legislation slowly wind its way through committees and get debated, dissected and amended. If the entire law or part of the law is upheld, the House GOP would vote for repeal, of course — they already have.

You see what they're doing there? They're emphasizing that if the GOP wins on this point, they actually lose, because they have "nothing" with which to replace ObamaCare, and in fact are just doodyheads who won't let "children" under 26 remain on their parents' health insurance plan.

This is what I call "pre-spin." And because I imagine it comes from the White House, I'm thinking the White House was tipped off, and tomorrow will be a bad day for them.

Same writer -- same! -- packages up the winners and losers, depending on tomorrow's holding.

Supreme Court health care ruling: Win-lose scenarios

...

President Barack Obama

Best case: The law is upheld in full.

...

Worst case: The court strikes down the entire Affordable Care Act.

Simply a nightmare for Obama....

Hard to argue with that. Seems pretty obvious. Now comes the same spin about the GOP having "nothing."

You would think that if a full repeal is worst-case for Obama, it should be best-case for Romney.

Nope.

Mitt Romney

Best Case: Nothing would energize RomneyÂ’s supporters and give his campaign more focus than the Supreme Court upholding the Affordable Care Act.

What? Obama's best case is also Romney's best case?

Such a ruling would give Romney license to spend the next four months railing exclusively against ObamaÂ’s health law, rather than being forced to explain how he would address health care.

“He hasn’t done it so far because why would you get off the message of Obamacare?” said GOP operative Chip Saltsman, who ran Mike Huckabee’s 2008 campaign. “That’s a winning message, ‘I want to repeal Obamacare.’ There’s not much else you have to say.”

Worst Case: If justices repeal either the mandate or the whole law, Romney will have to get specific about his own plans. He may also have to explain why he supports a ruling that knocks out popular elements of the health law.

So this author is setting up a curious situation: Whatever happens tomorrow, it's either good for, or bad for, Romney equally as it is good for, or bad for, Obama.

He's pretty much claiming it's a wash either way. Win or lose, it's a wash for both candidates.

This is the exact same thing he tried to peddle in the previous story I excerpted.

And what does the White House have to say?

Let's go to Politico again, this time a different writer.

W.H. blogs about ACA; no SCOTUS mention

By KATHRYN SMITH | 6/27/12 1:16 PM EDT

Supreme Court? What Supreme Court?

In a blog post Wednesday about President Barack ObamaÂ’s health care reform law, the White House had not a word to say on the courtÂ’s looming decision on the lawÂ’s constitutionality, which is less than 24 hours away.
Continue Reading

Instead, the White House continued highlighting various popular aspects of the law.

Health policy adviser Jeanne Lambrew wrote about how the law is benefiting Americans by providing preventive care, coverage for young adults on their parents’ plans and reductions in drug costs for senior citizens in the prescription drug “doughnut hole,” as well as stopping insurers from canceling policies when someone gets sick.

Note that the White House is not discussing the mandate or the ruling-- just once again ginning up support for the other, less controversial elements of ObamaCare.

Also note the stuff about the donut hole -- stuff the first excerpted article tried to sell you on.

Sure seems the White House is a full-court blitz about the donut hole and "children" under age 26.

Why should they be, if ObamaCare will still be law of the land tomorrow at 10:01am?

Now, if you think that high-level people have been tipped, and you also assume the White House is spoon-feeding Politico what it wants the ledes of the day to be -- two things I think are true; the first is likely true, the second is... well, just read Politico and draw your own judgement-- then it sure seems like the White House has been told ObamaCare is done.

I'm just about convinced: We won.

Now, I certainly wouldn't advise any oyster-fishermen to start shucking eachother's conchs just yet.

But I would say that conchs are tasty.

More! Roger Simon (the Politico one, not the Pajamas Media/screenwriter one) makes my heart sing with his preemptive sour grapes.

Our Supreme Court has lost its honor

By: Roger Simon
June 27, 2012 03:55 PM EDT

Once upon a time, in a place called America, there was a government with three equal branches. That America no longer exists.

One branch now rules American life.

It is the Supreme Court, and it consists of nine people elected by nobody. They rule for life. Their power is absolute.

To overrule them requires an amendment to the Constitution, a process so politically difficult, it is nigh on impossible. (The most recent amendment, the 27th, which deals with congressional salaries, took 203 years to ratify.)

Technically, the justices can be removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanors, but none ever has been.

There is no aspect of American life — from civil rights to sports, to guns, to religion, to sex — over which the justices have not exerted control.

...

Justice John Paul Stevens, now retired, wrote in his dissent in Bush v. Gore in 2000: “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”

That is a lot to lose. But we have lost it. And getting it back may be a long time in coming.

We won.

I didn't bother quoting all his blather, but suddenly he's against the whole principle of judicial review, asserted by Justice Marshall in like 1801 or something.

Now, I'm ambivalent about that, myself. But until today, liberals all swore it was the Bestest Thing In The History Of Besties.

Why the sudden whining?

Oh, right.

Thanks to Slublog for that one.

Assuming this has leaked -- that at least someone gave a tip-off about whether or not the White House should prepare for a good day, or a bad day -- then all of Politico's furious spinning makes perfect sense.

We won.

We won.

We won.

Slowin' My Roll: I have to note that the White House's pre-spinning via Easy Turn Politico would make sense even if they had no tip-off -- they would pre-spin it in case they got an adverse ruling. And then, if they got a positive ruling, who cares? All the spin would be immediately forgotten.

It's a cost-free bit of insurance. (The insurance also provides nothing in return; it's not like anyone buys this crap. But it also costs nothing.)

Still, even having said that, adding it to the other tea leaves... I just get the sense the White House is preparing for a bad ruling, and not just out of prudence.

Posted by: Ace at 03:44 PM | Comments (283)
Post contains 1413 words, total size 9 kb.

That's the story of then Secretary of the Navy (and current Romney naval adviser) John Lehman.

Had the UK lost one of it's two carriers, Reagan was prepared to give the UK the use of the USS Iwo Jima, an amphibious assault ship that could handle the Harrier jets the UK flew.

“We agreed that [Weinberger] would tell the President that we planned to handle all these requests routinely without going outside existing Navy channels,” Lehman said in a speech provided to the U.S. Naval Institute he made in Portsmouth, U.K. “We would ‘leave the State Department, except for [Secretary of State Al] Haig, out of it.’”

Reagan approved the request without hesitation and his instructions to Weinberger had been simple, “Give Maggie everything she needs to get on with it,” Lehman said in the speech.

Ah for the days of the Special Relationship.

One reason the State Department was to be cut out from such a transfer is that Haig was basically pushing for the UK to give in gracefully to the Argentinians.

John O'Sullivan writes about the internal deliberations of the Reagan team as seen through recently released NSC meeting minutes.

1. Reagan stuck to a distinction between sovereignty over the Falklands (on which Washington was neutral) and armed aggression to settle the question (on which Washington sided with Britain);

2. Within that distinction he allowed his Cabinet secretaries considerable leeway to pursue their own interpretations of U.S. policy;

3. Defense Secretary Cap Weinberger and CIA Deputy Director Bobby Inman used that leeway to push military and intelligence aid to Britain, and Secretary of State Haig used it to push Britain toward diplomatic concessions that amounted, in his own account to the NSC, to “camouflaged transfer of sovereignty.”

The US' "neutrality" during the war always seemed odd and was really de facto support for Argentina. While it was some what understandable in terms of hemispheric relations, it's nice to know based on Lehman's telling of it, that if push had come to shove we'd have been on the right side of history.

Posted by: DrewM at 03:19 PM | Comments (107)
Post contains 381 words, total size 3 kb.