filled in on the politics of the health-care decision?
It makes a BIG difference, legislatively and electorally, what they strike down and how.
For instance, if they struck down the whole thing that would be a disaster for the Republicans. They would have to scramble to save "the good parts," which they cannot do because they cannot pay for it, and the insurance companies will not accept being stick with the check.
Every nuance of the decision is loaded with election-season legislative implications, and a lot of nuance that a professional judge wouldn't get. (Does Scalia know whether Rand Paul would filibuster a bill re-establishing X provision? How many votes there are in the House for Y provision? What focus groups say... etc..)
My question is, have Scalia and Thomas (and others) been briefed on the optimal specifics of a decision from a political stand-point?
Reports that two Supreme Court Justices have attended seminars sponsored by the energy giant and conservative bankroller Koch Industries has sparked a mild debate over judicial ethics.
On Tuesday evening, the New York Times reported that an upcoming meeting in Palm Springs of "a secretive network of Republican donors" that was being organized by Koch Industries, "the longtime underwriter of libertarian causes." Buried in the third to last graph was a note that previous guests at such meetings included Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two of the more conservative members of the bench.
If these two had any ethics, they would have recursed themselves on this case