Maybe a split decision on ObamaCare wouldn't be such a bad thing

Today, Miranda v. Arizona is deeply embedded in U.S. constitutional law, widely accepted by police and public alike. Given the opportunity to overrule Miranda in 2000, the Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to affirm it. The majority opinion, by erstwhile Miranda critic Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, noted that “the warnings have become part of our national culture.”

I recite this history in anticipation of the outcry that may greet a 5 to 4 ruling in the pending health-care case.

Like others, I’ve worried that a one-vote majority in such a pivotal matter might harm the court’s legitimacy. But a closer reading of history, both distant and recent, suggests otherwise.