NOTE: Daily Kos Radio will provide full coverage of today's rulings from the Supreme Court.
The above headline from Bloomberg really tells the story of the extreme radical Roberts Court—the Affordable Care Act, including the individual mandate, is uniformly considered to be constitutionally valid by legal scholars, but they expect it to be struck down anyway.
This is the Republican radical conservative's idea of "judicial restraint"—deference to laws you like, and overturn longstanding Constitutional jurisprudence to strike down laws you do not like. Bloomberg reports:
The U.S. Supreme Court should uphold a law requiring most Americans to have health insurance if the justices follow legal precedent, according to 19 of 21 constitutional law professors who ventured an opinion on the most-anticipated ruling in years. Only eight of them predicted the court would do so.This is what legal scholars think of the Roberts Court. At least in academic legal circles, there is no respect for the integrity or professionalism of the Roberts Court. Will this lack of confidence in the integrity of the Court extend to the general public? Legal scholars and recent polling indicate that it will:
Eighteen of the 21 professors said the court’s credibility will be damaged if the insurance requirement -- which passed Congress without a single Republican vote -- is ruled unconstitutional by a 5-4 majority of justices appointed by Republican presidents.Today could be the day the decision comes down. For background on what to expect, see The ACA ruling: What the Court will decide, by Adam Bonin, The SCOTUS: Is an extreme constitutional winter coming?, by Armando, and 'Let 'em die!' What millions of Americans could lose after the Supreme Court rules., by Joan McCarter.