How the Supreme Court majority will rule on President Obama's Affordable Care Act may well have been foretold months or perhaps years ago — not so much by their questions during argument this week, as by their flagrant displays of bias outside the court, where certain justices regularly behave as dubiously as any sleazy officeholder.

While the public awaits the high court's judgment on the constitutionality of health care reform, it is worth remembering how cheaply Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in particular have sullied the integrity of their lifetime appointments, and how casually Chief Justice John Roberts and their other colleagues tolerate such outrages.

What is most scandalous in Washington, as a wise pundit once suggested, are the things politicians do that are perfectly legal but shouldn't be — an observation that applies with particular force to the Supreme Court, which is not subject to the ethics restrictions applied to lesser judges on the federal bench. That was why Scalia and Thomas, for instance, could appear as guests of honor at a fundraising dinner for the right-wing Federalist Society — which was sponsored by Bancroft PLLC, a major firm involved in litigation against the Affordable Care Act — on the very same day last November that they reviewed an appeal brief on the case from Paul Clement, the Bancroft attorney whose arguments they received so cordially this week.

In fact, Clement sat at a table "sandwiched between" the two justices. Scalia was seated with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had told the Federalists that he would rely on them to help undo the "affront" represented by health care reform. And for good measure, Justice Samuel Alito enjoyed the event at another table nearby.

If they were mere federal district or appeals judges, neither Scalia nor Thomas would have been permitted to attend the Federalist celebration, while ...

The future of health care hangs in the balance, as do some political fates, with the conclusion Wednesday of Supreme Court arguments that showed the justices divided but clearly willing to rule on the major questions at issue.

Longer than any since the 1960s, the arguments that ended Wednesday afternoon both clarified and clouded the potential outcome, with justices on the last day assessing whether most of the 2010 health care law could survive even if its most controversial provision — the individual mandate — were struck down.

Over a total of nearly six-and-a-half hours this week, the justices suggested that:

_ They will almost certainly rule on challenges to the Obama administration's signature health care law, rather than punt on technical grounds.

_ They could very well strike down the health-care law's central requirement that individuals must buy insurance, and the law's dictate that states expand Medicaid coverage, or even the law in its entirety.

_ They will be sharply divided in whatever they do. And because opposing sides won't be reconciled, it's more likely that the court itself could become campaign fodder in the fall ...

This week, the Alabama town of Bay Minette will implement a bizarre and unconstitutional way of keeping minor offenders in check — go to church or go to jail:

Operation Restore Our Community or “ROC”…begins next week.  READ FULL POST 121 COMMENTS