( CNN ) -- Like everyone else who listened to the arguments at the Supreme Court last week , I have no crystal ball for predicting whether the justices will uphold or strike down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act . But it seemed clear to me , as it did to most observers , that the court 's five Republican appointees are leaning toward invalidating the act 's minimum coverage provision , the `` mandate '' provision that requires most Americans to acquire health insurance by January 2014 . This was somewhat surprising . Even more surprising , though , was that several of the justices also seemed inclined to strike down the entire law , all 2,700 pages of it . This would be extraordinary . It would mark the first time in almost 80 years that the court invalidated such a significant federal law as exceeding Congress ' enumerated powers . It would also be the first time since the 1930s that it used the unconstitutionality of a law 's single provision to strike down a hugely important law in its entirety . The justices ' apparent willingness to take such steps suggests they may not appreciate the political stakes . A decision to wash away the most important federal statute in a generation , rendered in the heat of a presidential campaign , would likely unleash a political firestorm -- one that could significantly threaten the stature of the Supreme Court . Opinion : After the mandate , a boom in government-run health care . Some justices seem to ignore public opinion . Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have proclaimed as much . And it would certainly be troubling if the court were take ordinary politics into account in resolving most questions coming before it . But this is no ordinary case , and the court can not afford to blithely ignore how the nation 's reaction might harm its long-term institutional standing . As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist , the judiciary possesses `` neither force nor will , but merely judgment . '' And the court 's ability to serve its assigned role in our constitutional system as a critical check on the political process depends on the justices ' capacity to show the nation that it is exercising principled , reasoned judgment . Opinion : Obama should know better on Supreme Court 's role . In short , the justices must maintain the nation 's faith that their decisions are grounded in legal principle rather than partisan politics . For if Americans see the court as no more than another partisan body , the justices ' capacity to persuade persons of diverse ideological hues will be lost . So will , in important respects , our conception of the rule of law . With respect to the health care law , an ideologically predictable 5-4 decision -- especially to invalidate the law in its entirety -- runs the risk of creating precisely such an impression . It would be misguided , but that is beside the point . The impression alone poses serious dangers . Opinion : Obama was too timid on health care . Moreover , the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is only one of several high-profile , highly ideological disputes heading the court 's way . In the next few years , the justices will also be confronting Arizona 's controversial immigration law ( S.B . 1070 ) ; the University of Texas 's race-based undergraduate admissions program ; a sequel to Citizens United v. FEC , which allowed unlimited union and corporation spending in elections ; and , most likely , the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act , the Defense of Marriage Act ( which defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman ) and California 's Proposition 8 ( which bans same-sex marriage in that state ) . A steady stream of 5-4 decisions along predictable ideological lines , led by a decision to invalidate the 2010 health law , could prove toxic . This is not just sour grapes from those who substantively disagree with an increasingly conservative court . Chief Justice Roberts has eloquently voiced the same concern . In his numerous paeans to Chief Justice John Marshall , Roberts has recognized that the court must attend to its institutional stature with great care . If the justices are careless with the court 's political capital , Roberts has warned , the court will `` lose its credibility and legitimacy as an institution . `` The justices must not just be principled and nonpartisan ; they must also appear that way to the nation . '' Ultimately , the public 's faith in the justices as neutral arbiters of law is essential to the court 's legitimacy , the independence of the federal judiciary and even the rule of law . When that faith is diminished , something incredibly precious is lost -- something far more important than the outcome of any one case . I fear that the justices are playing with fire . For the sake of the court , I sure hope they are careful . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Bradley Joondeph .
Bradley Joondeph : No one can predict how Supreme Court will rule on health care law . He says there were indications that some justices would throw out entire law . Joondeph : Throwing out hugely important law , in midst of campaign , would be a big risk . But it's not clear if the court is willing to take such risks right now.