Constitutional Clash over PPACA: Beware of preconceived notion?
When the Supreme court asses a law for its constitutionality, they are usually sensitive to the motive of congress or their intention as to the meaning of the provisions in the law. On a constitutional level, determination are made in suits before the court to correct for mistake where there is the possibility of erroneous danger to the public and or, invalidation of constitutional provisions with respect to the application of the law. More often however, the Nine-judge seating court, simply rule either way, in support or against the constitutionality of the law. Where the judges are generally convinced that their decisions in support or against the constitutionality of the law are rational, either still votes his conscience or position on the critical provisions. Judges are generally convinced that their votes indicate their understanding of the constitutionality of the provisions in the law; or, where the constitution stands on raised issues of merit. In reality, a substantial number of decisions from the high court are based on facts and evidence presented by the prosecutor and defending attorneys. When the Judges sense some danger in the arguments advanced by either supporting or defending attorneys, the judges are generally cautious of their ruling.
The kind of preconceived emotional arguments from either camp on politically charged issues hardly sways these judges. Seasoned attorneys before the supreme court have learned to trust the instincts of the judges by rummaging through their past decisions on high button politically charged cases similar to the one at hand before the high court. Being cautious of past rulings and stance of the individual judge on Supreme Court's bench is how the best of attorneys, or representing attorneys, predict the possibility of a judge ruling in their favor. Seasoned attorneys trust that the judges will rule in a pattern symptomatic of their legal biases; although each is willing to evaluate the merits and argument presented by attorneys before their court, afresh. So, where do the lucks of the pro- and anti-Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act groups stand? No one can tell, until the case is brought before the Supreme Court, arguments presented from both end of the spectrum and the judges hand down a decision. For those in a hurry, maybe it will be wise to wait until the case(s) get a Supreme Court docket number in the current session!