Supreme Court arguments on healthcare law begin today.

on the eve of the first day of arguments before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the healthcare reform law, print and television coverage continued to be heavy, with nearly three minutes of coverage on network newscasts.

        USA Today (3/26, Wolf) reports, "Not since the court confirmed George W. Bush's election in December 2000 -- before 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, Wall Street's dive and Obama's rise -- has one case carried such sweeping implications for nearly every American." USA notes, "A poll this month by the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation found 42% were either unsure of the law's status or believed the Supreme Court had already overturned it." USA adds, "This year's presidential election and the agenda of the next Congress will be affected by the justices' ruling, expected in late June."

        The AP (3/26, Sherman) reports, "Polls have consistently shown the public is at best ambivalent about the benefits of the health care law, and that a majority of Americans believe the mandatory insurance requirement is unconstitutional. The administration's public education campaign has come under strong criticism from its allies who say the White House has been timid in the face of relentless Republican attacks."

        First arguments will be about timing of challenge. The Washington Post (3/26, Barnes) reports, "The Supreme Court begins its constitutional review of the health-care overhaul law Monday with a fundamental question: Is the court barred from making such a decision at this time?" The court "will hear 90 minutes of argument about whether an obscure 19th-century law -- the Anti-Injunction Act -- means that the court cannot pass judgment on the law until its key provisions go into effect in 2014." The Post notes that "the Obama administration lawyers and those representing the states and private organization challenging the new law argue that the Supreme Court should decide the constitutional question now," but that a panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.

        Votes of Republican-appointed Justices hard to predict. The Washington Times (3/26, Cunningham) reports that "while nobody doubts how the four Democrat-appointed justices will decide, there is no such certainty on how the Republican appointees will rule in the case, which will go a long way toward defining the scope and limits of government power in the 21st century." Among the five other justices, "conservative stalwart Clarence Thomas is the only one viewed as a sure vote against the mandate and possibly other parts of the law."