Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’

Constitution and Supreme Court roundup

  • Coming up next Tuesday, Sept. 18, in Washington: Cato Constitution Day. Be there! [schedule]
  • In the unlikely event Congress enacts federal limits on state malpractice suits, Prof. Randy Barnett says he expects to help with a court challenge [Andrew Cochran, earlier]
  • Michael Uhlmann reviews Michael Greve’s The Upside-Down Constitution, and Greve responds [Claremont, Liberty and Law] A New Hampshire story: our “cooperative federalism” can’t replace a simple bridge [Mark Steyn]
  • Broad discretionary search of citizens’ private papers? FISA strains Fourth Amendment [Julian Sanchez]
  • Paging Akhil Amar: Romney on Meet the Press says “I am as conservative as the constitution” [Tucson Citizen] Randy Barnett vs. Amar on progressive constitutionalism [WSJ, Volokh]
  • “Constitutional Places: The Carolene Products Factory That Straddled The Border Between Missouri and Oklahoma, But Did Not Engage In Interstate Commerce” [Josh Blackman, with picture and diagram of filled-milk plant]
  • “More thoughts on Justice Sutherland” [Magliocca, ConcurOp]
  • Seize first, compensate later? Cato files amicus in raisin-farmer takings case [Ilya Shapiro]
  • “What Were They Thinking: The Supreme Court in Revue 2011” [John Elwood & Eric White, Green Bag, PDF]

“Rasmussen poll: only 7 percent of public supports principle of Wickard v. Filburn”

“Rasmussen has a poll out today that shows that only 7 percent of Americans support Wickard v. Filburn, the 1942 Supreme Court case upholding the use of the Commerce Clause to regulate a farmer’s wheat growing for personal consumption.” [Ammon Simon, NRO “Bench Memos”] David M. Wagner: “Too bad nine of ’em are on the Supreme Court.”

Medical roundup

  • How’d we get shortages of hospital and community sterile injectables? Check out the role of FDA Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) regs, warning letters, and resulting plant closures [Tabarrok, with comments controversy; earlier here, here, here, etc.]
  • California orthopedist sues, wins damages against medical society that took action against him based on his testimony for plaintiff in liability case [American Medical News; earlier here, etc.]
  • Can’t have that: medical apology should be opposed because it “can create an emotional connection with an injured patient that makes the patient less likely to ask for compensation.” [Gabriel Teninbaum (Suffolk Law), Boston Globe]
  • Feds’ war on painkillers is bad news for legit patients and docs [Reuters, Mike Riggs/Reason]
  • New federal pilot project in Buffalo will provide concierge-style home care to emergency-department frequent fliers. Spot the unintended consequence [White Coat]
  • Dastardly drug companies? Deconstructing Glaxo SmithKline’s $3 billion settlement [Greg Conko, MPT] More: Beck, Drug and Device Law, on suits over “what are mostly medically valid and beneficial off-label uses”. Paging Ted Frank: “HIPAA’s Vioxx toll” thesis may depend on whether one accepts that the premised Vioxx toll has been established [Stewart Baker, Ted’s recent post]
  • U.K.: “Lawyers seizing lion’s share of payouts in NHS negligence cases” [Telegraph]
  • Silver linings in SCOTUS ObamaCare ruling? [Jonathan Adler and Nathaniel Stewart] “DNC Scientists Disprove Existence of Roberts’ Taxon” [Iowahawk humor] Did Ginsburg hint at the court’s direction on the HHS contraception mandate? [Ed Morrissey, Hot Air]

[cross-posted at Cato at Liberty]

Judges roundup

The good, the bad, and the beyond belief:

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.

Constitutional law roundup

As everyone waits for the ObamaCare ruling…

  • Justice Kennedy often votes with right half of Court on economic issues, left on social — if only there were a word for that [David Boaz]
  • SCOTUS decisions on evidence, Indian law remind us of inadequacies of “red-blue” stereotype of Court divisions [Hans Bader]
  • “Can the Government Destroy Property Values ‘Temporarily’ Without Compensation?” [Ilya Shapiro, Cato]
  • New book on how a 1987 Supreme Court decision opened up Indian gaming [James Huffman reviews Ralph Rossum, LLL]
  • “That’s Not Kosher: How Four Jewish Butchers Brought Down the First New Deal” [Steven Horwitz, The Freeman]
  • Except for, like, not demanding damages or trial or things like that? Declaration of Independence described as “founding lawsuit.” [John Goldberg via TortsProf]
  • New book reviews in Federalist Society “Engage”: Richard Epstein on John Inazu, Liberty’s Refuge: The Forgotten Freedom of Assembly, and Robert Gasaway on Michael Greve, The Upside-Down Constitution]

Knox v. SEIU

My colleague Ilya Shapiro hails as “a major victory for individual liberties” today’s Supreme Court decision in Knox v. SEIU, in which a five-member majority, reversing the Ninth Circuit, upheld the right of union members not to be assessed political contributions without their consent; Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor concurred in the result but not the majority opinion, while Justices Breyer and Kagan dissented. More: Damon Root, Reason; Daniel Fisher, Forbes; Trevor Burrus, Cato (quoting Justice Alito’s majority opinion: “the effect of the SEIU’s procedure was to force many nonmembers to subsidize a political effort designed to restrict their own rights.”).