My new opinion piece on the ObamaCare decision and its leaks. It’s the first thing I’ve written for The Daily, the iPad-native news launch. Earlier coverage of NFIB v. Sebelius/the Health Care Cases here, here, here, here, here, etc.
Posts Tagged ‘John Roberts’
ObamaCare decision roundup II
- The article everyone’s talking about on John Roberts’s switch [Jan Crawford, CBS] But who were her sources?
- “ObamaCare Lost on the Medicaid Mandate & Commerce Power. It May Yet Lose on the Tax Power” [Michael Cannon, Cato]
- The ultimate, and I do mean ultimate, link roundup [Joshua Matz, SCOTUSBlog]
- Opinion reactions: Steve Chapman, Michael Barone.
- A view from Left: conservatives lost Thursday, and purported silver lining’s not even tin [Lemieux] NFIB v. Sebelius “the most important court victory for liberalism in my lifetime.” [Joey Fishkin]
- Not Marbury, no way, no how [David Wagner, Ninomania]
- “Polarization and legitimacy: why we’re wigging out” [Will Wilkinson, The Economist]
- Call off the celebrations, it’s just a satire: “Supreme Court Strikes Down All Laws Signed By Barack Obama” [Balkin]
- Don’t forget that Cato’s star-packed event looking at the meaning of the NFIB v. Sebelius decision will take place live on the web tomorrow, Monday, Jul. 2, 1:30-4:45 Eastern.
- And I’ll be the guest on the “Pundit Review” show this evening at 7:30 Eastern on Boston’s RKO with Kevin Whalen to discuss Thursday’s ruling.
Obamacare decision roundup
- “We won everything but the case.” Ilya Shapiro at SCOTUSBlog on what it’s like to have your arguments succeed while your client goes down. Recommended;
- David Kopel applauds, especially the Medicaid ruling limiting strings on federal support of states;
- Michael Greve turns thumbs down: “the Chief’s supposed act of statesmanship has bought nothing that is worth having.”
- Clark Neily: “as litigators know very well, it is always more important what a court did than what it said. … Notwithstanding the majority’s assurances … the Court ratified what many perceive as the most significant expansion of federal power in 75 years.”
- John Podhoretz: Roberts’ artful dodgery on tax issue does the Court no credit. Similarly: Jim Huffman;
- From a David Frum reader: did Roberts bail because the four justices to his right got too frisky on severability?
- And Cato’s star-packed event looking at the meaning of the NFIB v. Sebelius decision will take place live on the web this coming Monday, Jul. 2, 1:30-4:45 Eastern.
Roberts as military strategist
The wise general does not always march forth and capture a city, even one of great strategic importance, if he knows his forces are unlikely to hold it against the inevitable counterattack. He may be better off taking only the territory he has a good chance of holding on to.
P.S. And see this Sun-Tzu-citing Will Wilkinson analysis.
NFIB v. Sebelius quote of the day
“For those of us who oppose the Affordable Care Act as a policy matter, this is a bad day,” [Georgetown law professor Randy] Barnett said. “For those of us in this fight to preserve the limits of constitutional government, this is not a bad day.” [Ezra Klein; more from Prof. Barnett at Daily Beast] Similarly, at more length: Sean Trende, RCP via Tom Smith, Right Coast. Contrasting views: Ilya Shapiro, Philadelphia Inquirer (“an unfortunate convergence of two unholy strains of constitutional jurisprudence: liberal activism and conservative pacifism”); Ramesh Ponnuru (“The resulting law may be a better one than Congress wrote. It is not, however, the law that Congress wrote.”).
And here is a podcast from the Cato Institute with colleagues Roger Pilon, Ilya Shapiro, Trevor Burrus, Michael Cannon, and Michael Tanner:
And a video interview with Trevor Burrus here. Don’t forget, if you didn’t check in on it at the time, yesterday’s periodically updated Twitter-scroll post with (at last count) 43 tweets and dozens of links to relevant posts and resources.
Law schools roundup
- Law profs (some of them, anyway) bristle at “impractical scholarship” critique from Chief Justice Roberts [Ifill, ConcurOp; Adler; Chiang, Prawfs; Markel]
- Noisy exit by University of Baltimore law dean calls attention to law schools’ role as cash cows for universities [Caron]
- There’ll always be a legal academia: redefining banks as public nuisances [Lind via CL&P] “Disability as a Social Construct” [Areheart, Yale Law and Policy Review] North Dakota’s fiscal health? Nothing to do with shale boom or budget prudence, it’s that they’ve got a state-owned bank [Pasquale/Canova]
- “Why Does Pedigree Drive Law Faculty Hiring?” [Paul Caron] Using the accreditation process to mandate more tenure for lawprofs? [same] “ABA to Continue as Law School Accrediter, Despite Noncompliance With 17 Regs” [same]
- “Have Law Schools Violated Consumer Protection Laws?” [Jeff Sovern, CL&P] Villanova keeps mum after embarrassing revelations [Inquirer]
January 5 roundup
- Notables including Alan Morrison, Richard Epstein, Kathleen Sullivan sign amicus brief urging court review of multistate tobacco settlement [Daniel Fisher/Forbes, Christine Hall/CEI, Todd Zywicki]
- “Congress rediscovers the Constitution” [Roger Pilon, WSJ]
- Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. profiled [Roger Parloff, Fortune]
- When outside investors stake divorce litigants: yes, there are legal ethics angles [Christine Hurt]
- Mexico, long noted for strict gun control laws, has only one legal gun store [WaPo]
- Judge throws out “parasitic” lawsuit piggybacking on Wisconsin drug-pricing settlement [Madison.com]
- Erin Brockovich sequel: Talking back to the Environmental Working Group on dangers of chromium-6 in drinking water [Oliver, Logomasini/CEI]
- “Little white lies” to protect the bar’s image [five years ago on Overlawyered]