Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA who has been following the health care case, weighed in after Tuesday's oral arguments on the individual mandate.
He writes in an email to TPM:
There were few surprises in the oral argument today. The liberal justices expressed their comfort with the mandate and the conservatives expressed skepticism. Kennedy gave the audience mixed signals, obscuring how he'll rule. The only people who were surprised were the pundits who predicted Scalia's vote would be in play. Instead, Scalia was vigorous in his questioning of the government. When the ACA was passed, I predicted that precedent wouldn't decide this case, and today the Justices didn't seem overly concerned with past decisions.
Winkler's take on how the case will turn out?
It's too close to call.