The decision in the case is likely to determine whether payday lenders are free to issue loans in defiance of Ohio's legislature and its voters.

But if anything, Tuesday's oral arguments showed just how determined payday lenders are to keep their claws in down-on-their luck Ohio borrowers.

Heading into the oral arguments the legal scorecard was 5-0, in favor of consumers, if you count efforts by the state legislature, the voters of Ohio and three lower courts to end payday lending and the misery of triple-digit interest.

And yet, there was Cash America's lawyer, telling Ohio's highest court that the 9th District Court of Appeals was "dead wrong" when it concluded the legislature wanted to limit payday lenders when it revoked the payday loan law in 2008 and put in its place the Short Term Lending Act.

John Zeiger, the attorney for Cash America's Ohio Neighborhood Finance arm, tried to convince justices that the Ohio General Assembly intended all along to give the industry an out.

Apparently, it was a legislative wink that only the payday industry saw.

Of course, neither of those laws permit two-week loans - the term of the Cashland loan at issue in the case in front of the court.

Details, details.

On the other side, Cleveland Legal Aid attorney Julie Robie told the court that payday loans are not legal in Ohio -- regardless of how payday lenders feel about the issue.

"Short-term loans are not legal in Ohio unless they comply with the Short Term Loan Act," Robie said.

The Short Term Loan Act requires lenders to give borrowers at least a month to repay loans, caps loan amounts at $500 and puts an end to triple-digit annual interest rates on loans - all of which give strapped borrowers a better shot at repaying the loans without re-borrowing.

"The Short Term Loan Act, by the plain language of that law, applies both to lenders who are licensed and those  required to be licensed," Robie told the justices.

The Short Term Lending Act specifically provided for payday lenders operating under the old payday loan law to become licensed under the Short Term Loan Act and, Robie said, prohibited lenders from trying to circumvent the law.

So no, payday lenders can't just write their own rules.

Or at least, they shouldn't be allowed to.

Studies by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau show that borrowers have trouble paying off payday loans because they're so pricey and due so fast. So instead, many borrowers wind up repeatedly borrowing - basically incurring new fees to renew the same loan - in a doomed effort to stay ahead of the balloon payment laying in wait for them.

Zeiger's right about one thing.

For the last five years, payday lenders have simply continued doing business as usual in Ohio without interference from regulators.

Payday lenders have been betting all that time that no one will make them heed the law.

The Supreme Court has the opportunity to force payday lenders to obey Ohio law.

Lately, the payday industry has been advertising "installment loans," presumably as a hedge against an adverse decision by the court.

When the legislature passed the Short Term Loan Act in 2008, payday lenders took the issue to the ballot hoping Ohioans would be conned into overturning it. Ohioans, though, voted for fair lending.

During the Supreme Court arguments, there was a lot of talk about the intent of the legislature, but little mention of the intent of the people.

We said no.

If there's any justice, the court will hear us.

See the oral arguments for yourself: http://www.ohiochannel.org/MediaLibrary/Media.aspx?fileId=141455