universal devide

If what the pundits are correct and it turns out to be a vote along party lines, then that, in my opinion, is a bad thing for the court itself.  The Chief Justice has tried to avoid these types of rulings because he knows it is a bad thing to openly clarify the ideological devide in the form of a 5/4 ruling along party lines.  Whichever way the ruling goes, it will be best for the the court and the county if it by more than the minimum majority either way.   I was surprised that the attorney arguing in favor of Obamacare didn't use the example of citizens being forced to buy automobile insurance.  Of course that is being done by the states but it still seems like an example that would be a better fit than the burial insurance, brocoli, or cell phone examples they discussed.  It is always a bad sign when judges try to oversimplify an issue into something that it isn't and I don't think the president's guy did such a good job in coming up with common sense answers and examples.  His biggest hurdle seems to come down to convincing the court that it is in fact constitutional for the federal government to force citizens to purchase insurance.

I also agree that the questions asked during the oral presentation are not a reliable indicator of how the court will rule.  When it comes down to it, just as Clarence Thomas has previously said, the court relies mostly on the written briefs.  The bottom line now is that we will find out in the summer when the ruling is issued.