Friday marked the final deadline for amicus briefs discussing the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act in the Supreme Court, and a pattern that has proven true throughout this litigation repeated itself once again — organizations with real, on the ground expertise in health care lined up almost entirely in support of the law. Amici on the pro-health reform side include health provider groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Nurses Association, patient groups such as the March of Dimes, the American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Heart Association, and hospital groups such as the American Hospital Association, the Association of American Medical Colleges, and the Catholic Health Association of the United States.

The anti-ACA side, however, includes a very different list of groups:

• Right-Wing Think Tanks: The Cato Institute, a radical group which believes that Medicare is unconstitutional, filed numerous briefs on the side of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. They are joined by other conservative think tanks such as the Pacific Research Institute, the Rutherford Institute and the Texas Public Policy Foundation in opposing the law.
• Right-Wing Legal Groups: Also weighing in against the law are conservative law firms such as the Institute for Justice, the American Center for Law and Justice and the Landmark Legal Foundation.
• Republican Lawmakers: Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who also believes that Medicare is unconstitutional, makes an appearance in his own amicus brief. He is joined in other briefs by Republican luminaries like Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and, indeed, much of the Senate GOP caucus.
• Other Anti-ACA Plaintiffs: Numerous plaintiffs from other lawsuits challenging the ACA also filed briefs. They include groups such as the Thomas More Law Center and, of course, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R).
• Nullificationists: Several supporters of unconstitutional state laws attempting to nullify the Affordable Care Act also filed a brief. No word on whether they will also attempt to secede from the union if the ACA is upheld.
• Other Random Conservative Groups: It is not entirely clear what stake the Montana Shooting Sports Association has in this lawsuit. Nevertheless, they filed a brief.

This is not to say, of course, that progressive groups and Democratic lawmakers didn’t also weigh in in favor of the law. Nor is it to say that health groups were entirely absent from the conservative side — they just weren’t particularly well represented either in numbers or in quality. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a small conservative medical group best known for publishing an article falsely claiming that undocumented immigrants were bringing an epidemic of leprosy into the United States, filed a brief. So did a group of six anti-abortion health provider groups. Unless additional briefs become public that are not already available, however, it appears that every brief filed by a non-ideological health group supports the law.

Earlier this month, the nation was barraged with media coverage of the Catholic Bishops’ opposition to regulations promulgated under the Affordable Care Act protecting working women’s access to contraception. The loudness of the bishops’ complaints, which were echoed by conservative luminaries ranging from Speaker John Boehner to GOP presidential frontrunners Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney, easily could have conveyed the misimpression that churches and other religious groups are at odds with the Affordable Care Act.

On Friday, however, a broad coalition of religious organizations filed an amicus brief supporting the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion that should give the lie to any claim that the faith community opposes the ACA. The brief includes a number of major religious denominations, including the policy arm of the United Methodist Church, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ and an important Presbyterian Church policy body. Additionally, the brief’s signatories include a wide range of Catholic groups:

Benedictine Sisters, Boerne, Texas; Congregation of the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, Texas; Dominican Congregation of Our Lady of the Rosary, New York; Dominican Sisters of Hope; Justice and Peace Committee of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Springfield, Massachusetts; Marianist Province of the United States; Sisters of Charity of St. Elizabeth Leadership Team, New Jersey; Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent De Paul of New York; Sisters of the Holy Cross Congregation Justice Committee; Sisters of the Incarnate Word and Blessed Sacrament, Corpus Christi, Texas; Sisters of Mercy West Midwest Justice Team, Nebraska; Sisters of the Most Precious Blood, Missouri; Sisters of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, New York; Sisters of St. Dominic Congregation of the Most Holy Name; Society of the Holy Child Jesus, American Province Leadership Team; Ursuline Sisters of Tildonk, US Province; JOLT, Catholic Coalition for Responsible Investing; Region VI Coalition for Responsible Investment, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee; School Sisters of Notre Dame Cooperative Investment Fund

None of this religious support for the ACA should be surprising. After all, all that these religious groups are doing is following Psalm 82′s command to “Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; [and] deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

Pope Benedict XVI has called health care an “inalienable right,” and added that it is the “moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens.”

Rick Santorum has been trying to shed the notion that he’s obsessed with sex and show voters that he has more to offer than hard-line stances on social issues. But, a visitor to his website would be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

Despite the myriad serious issues the country faces, the top item on Santorum’s “Issues” page is “Enforcing Laws Against Illegal Pornography.” The very first post makes ominous claims about pornography’s “profound” negative effect on the brain and society that many Americans would likely find hyperbolic. A screen grab:

Meanwhile, the word “tax” appears only 4 times on the issue page and “job” only 5 times — the same number as “abortion” and fewer than “pornography,” which appears 8 times.

While it’s not clear if the items are listed on the page in any particular order — the campaign did not return a request for clarification — the top-billing pornography gets will likely not help Santorum convince voters that his priorities reflect reality. Although, his stance should come as no surprise as Santorum has signed a pledge vowing to crack down on porn.

Billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson has already given the pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC Winning Our Future $21 million this year. Now, as his preferred candidate flounders in the polls, Adelson is floating the possibility of donating an additional $100 million.

A political contribution of that magnitude from a single source would be absolutely unprecedented. The next largest single contribution — a mere $5 million that “singlehandedly revived Gingrich’s campaign” last month — came from Adelson as well. All super PACs combined have raised $98.5 million this cycle, less than the possible $100 million Adelson check.

With net worth estimated at approximately $25 billion, Adelson is the eighth richest person in the United States. When asked if uber-wealthy plutocrats making political purchases of this magnitude was fair, he offered this response:

“I’m against very wealthy ­people attempting to or influencing elections,” he shrugs. “But as long as it’s doable I’m going to do it.”

Setting aside Adelson’s Orwellian hypocrisy, progressives could not have said it better themselves. They are not only opposed to rich people buying elections, but also against it being perfectly legal to do so.

Indeed, one need look no further than Gingrich’s rhetoric and policy proposals in the Middle East to see where Adelson is receiving a return on his investment. For nearly two decades, Adelson has lobbied for an extremely controversial proposal to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Now, Gingrich has said he will do so on his very first day as president. Adelson has also lauded Gingrich’s characterization of Palestinians as “an invented people.”

Individuals should not be permitted to buy public policy in this country, yet our campaign system post-Citizens United and the rise of super PACs permits them such undue influence. As long as unlimited political contributions remain legal, billionaires like Adelson will continue to take advantage of the system.

Last Friday, after Senate Republicans refused to allow the Senate to move forward with a vote on 90 pending nominees to federal positions, an exasperated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took to the Senate floor to suggest that drastic action might be necessary to meet this obstructionist force with equal force:

I think that the president did the minimal with his recess appointments — the minimal. I think he’s waited far too long. If something doesn’t break here, I’m going to recommend to the president he recess appoint all these people — every one of them.

Watch it:

Reid’s statement is the second time in two months that he’s indicated the highly unproductive status quo is not acceptable. Last month, when President Obama endorsed significant filibuster reform to ensure that all nominees receive an up or down vote in the Senate, Reid largely endorsed the proposal. His statement on Friday is another hopeful sign that Reid’s caucus might be prepared to take real action to ensure that the Senate minority can no longer threaten our government’s ability to function.

For obstructionist Senate Republicans, however, there is a certain irony behind Reid’s latest statement. The most obstructionist members of the Senate, such as Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), claim their opposition to the president’s nominees is justified to preserve the Senate’s role as a gatekeeper over people appointed to key government jobs — and, when done in good faith, such a gatekeeper role is genuinely important. Presidential appointees wield tremendous power, and, in a perfect world, should not be given that kind of power without some kind of evaluation of their fitness to hold it.

At the same time, however, the worst of all possible worlds is one where government cannot function at all due to blanket obstruction of the president’s nominees.

If obstructionists like Lee force the president to use blanket recess appointments in order to simply keep our nation functioning, the irony is that they will achieve the opposite of what they set out to accomplish. The Senate should conduct good faith reviews of each nominee and vote down the ones they deem unacceptable, but if an obstructionist minority is unwilling to operate in good faith than the president has no choice but to make sure that American government can function properly without them.