Report: Ginsburg sees ‘sharp disagreements’ as court rulings near

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is predicting “sharp disagreements” on the high court as the justices are on the cusp of landmark rulings including the fate of President Obama’s healthcare law.

“As one may expect, many of the most controversial cases remain pending,” she said in remarks Friday evening to the American Constitution Society, according to CNN. “So it is likely that the sharp disagreement rate will go up next week and the week after.”

The high court is slated to rule in the next two weeks on the healthcare reforms, including the core question of whether the individual insurance mandate is constitutional, as well as on Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law, broadcast indecency regulations, and other matters.

The fate of the healthcare law, Obama's signature domestic policy achievement, has enormous political and policy stakes for his administration and reelection campaign. But Ginsberg left the audience guessing about what’s coming.

“At the Supreme Court, those who know don't talk,” she said. “And those who talk don't know.”

Ginsburg noted that the current term is dealing with many weighty issues.

“The term has been more than usually taxing, some have called it the term of the century,” she noted, according to CNN.

Ginsburg – who is part of the high court’s liberal wing – gave no hints about the upcoming healthcare ruling, but acknowledged that the justices were aware of the high level of attention to the case.

“No contest since the court invited new briefs and arguments in 'Citizens United' has attracted more attention – in the press, the academy," she said, referring to Citizens United v. FEC, which led to a 2010 ruling that allows unlimited corporate spending in elections.

“Some have described the controversy as unprecedented and they may be right if they mean the number of press conferences, prayer circles, protests, counter protests, going on outside the court while oral argument was under way inside,” she said of the high-profile healthcare case.

---