I stumbled upon a non-astrological blog: His Vorpal Sword written by Hart Williams. Mr Williams' post dated 26 March is titled Athena and the Jurists and opens like this:Any astrologer worth her salt would tell you that there is not a lot of good that you can expect from a grand Supreme Court argument over the future of health care, held on a day when Mercury is retrograde, Saturn is retrograde, and Mars is retrograde. And, since, like global warming, astrology is easily refuted, except by observation, allow me to make this observation on the madness of the zeitgeist.That's the only mention of astrology in the complex and interesting post......rather a good astrological point he made....
In an UPDATE to this Thursday's post I wrote: "trust a triple Aquarian to do the unexpected" - referring to Chief Justice Roberts' voting with the liberal justices rather than with the four right-wing conservatives on the bench, as has been usual. Recalling, via the above extract, that retrograde planets were around at the time of the initial arguments makes me wonder whether those retrograde planets have turned out to have had some symbolism or astrological importance: i.e. an eventual revision, reversal, reconsideration (retrograding) of one justice's crucially important opinion ?
I've read several comments from lawyers who, having perused the SCOTUS decision, and the dissent, have come to the conclusion that the dissent seems to have been written more in the style of a majority decision. If they are correct, and I have no means of knowing how reliable their opinion is, it might mean that there was a last-minute change by someone - Chief Justice Roberts?
Part of my My 1 April response to blog buddy R.J. Adams has turned out to seem correct:
I'm suspecting now that SCOTUS was only showboating, and they'll uphold the Act but don't want to make it look too easy. They couldn't possibly take away all that extra dosh from their pals the insurance corporations.Chief Justice Roberts achieved two things by upholding ACA: he somewhat rescued SCOTUS's image from appearing to be politically-driven and partisan; it has been seen that way due to many recent rulings, leading to a huge dip in public approval of the Court. CJ Roberts has managed to adjust Scotus's image for the better while still buttering up the corporations - again. This time the insurance corporations benefit. CJ Roberts might even have achieved a third result: Gov. Romney now has another weapon to wield in his campaign against President Obama - that newly named "tax".
They say that President Obama is a political chess player. It now seems that Chief Justice Roberts can match him, move for move. And where are we in all this? To paraphrase a line from Bob Dylan: "We're just pawns in their game".
During coming months it will be interesting to note whether the SCOTUS decision will benefit President Obama in his re-election campaign because his flagship legislation, The Affordable Care Act or so-called Obamacare, has survived SCOTUS. Or, whether the categorising as a dreaded "tax" the penalty for not buying health insurance will assist Gov. Romney in firing up his base, along with some independents and libertarians.