Ok, the big moment is approaching. Here is what to look for. The Supreme Court typically delivers its opinions at 10am on Mondays, with the most contentious cases being last. So, set your DVR's. I go with Fox News. As early as tomorrow, 6/11, but more likely: 6/18 or 6/25, We should have the opinion on the alleged "Affordable Care Act" or in typical shorthand, the healthcare law, spawn of Satan (Nancy Pelosi) and her lapdog, Barack Hussein Obama. Ladies and Gentleman, Place your bets! There are two phases in which the court was asked to decide: 1. The personal mandate, 2. The rest of the body of the law as signed. They can go different ways. I make the following prediction: 1. The personal mandate: Overturned. Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy. I predict based on reactions during oral arguments that better than 50% chance Breyer joins, giving us a 6-3 tossing out the personal mandate. Scalia or Roberts write the opinion. I PRAY that its Scalia, he can bring the pointed snark. If you want to hear editorial content and a cohesive, intelligent and direct (as it can get, the SCOTUS does NOT comment on opinions outside the Court) smackdown to Obama, Pelosi and Leahy, here is where you will hear it. It may be elegantly worded, it WILL have technical detail as to why, and since Obama, Pelosi and Leahy are such legal illiterates, he will probably go to the tedium of having to cite Marbury v. Madison to cement judicial review, since they seem to have forgotten it. 2. The remainder: Overturned, 5-4, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, with a possible join by Breyer, odds less than 50%. It will be beyond a mess if the mandate is struck down and the rest of the law is not, as the law is built on the personal mandate. It completely falls apart otherwise. Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg all dissent, with Ginsburg a possible wildcard. I predict Kagan will write the dissent, or possibly the wise Latina.The dissent will have to be about as warped and entertaining as the oral arguments, everything but handstands in order to justify or defend the illogic of the whole mess complete with its contradictions. Otherwise, it will just go shallow and cite general principles since getting too far into the details will require them explaining the unexplainable. The night of the decision you should try and listen to Mark Levin to get a dissertation on how it all went down. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. You heard it here first. Place your bets!