Thought y’all would enjoy this post
, on one of THE BIG DEAL law-profs’ blogs. It’s bloggers are right- to center-right libertarians, all (or at least most) of them former law clerks to one of the conservative Supreme Court justices.
Ah. And this
is even more
UPDATE: Welll. Hmmm. As I said earlier today in a comment in response to JackD’s comment about my post, I was surprised to read the original law-prof blogger’s interpretation of Ginsburg’s weekend comments, because on Monday I had concluded the opposite after reading a quote from Ginsburg’s speech.
The quote was:
As one may expect, many of the most controversial cases remain pending. So it is likely that the sharp disagreement rate will go up next week and the week after.
As I noted in my comment to Jack, “Sharp disagreement,” in Supreme Court coverage, usually means 5-4 decisions, although sometimes it means “fractured,” as in, there were a zillion separate concurring and dissenting opinions, and no one can actually figure out what the hell the actual result was.
As I also said, the ACA case, of course, isn’t the only high-profile case the Court will decide in the next 10 days or so. But I still read that comment as suggesting a 5-4 result in the ACA case. The CW is that if the ACA is stricken down, it will be 5-4, but that if it’s upheld it will be 6-3. But Kerr could be right. Ginsburg might have just been sending out a red herring. Who knows? Or: Oh, what the hell.
Ooooh. This is more nerve-wracking than betting on your Kentucky Derby favorite, who’s no one else’s favorite; your odds are even worse. And there’s no “place” or “show” here. Unless ….
As I also said in responding to comments to my post—JackD’s and run’s—the impact of the poll I linked to in the last sentence of my post is, I think, that it suggests that, contrary to the CW of the last two years, the healthcare-insurance issue could be a big positive, rather than a negative, for the Dems in November, if the Court does strike down the entire ACA or the mandate part of it. (And even if it doesn’t, since by the election most people finally will actually know what’s in the law, what’s not in the law, and what the purpose of the mandate is and how it relates to the preexisting-conditions provision.) The Repubs want the status quo. The Dems and a substantial majority of the public don’t.
*In response to a comment by Gary, in the Comments to this post, asking what “CW” is, I wrote:
Conventional wisdom. I’m sorry. I did exactly what I hate when other people do that. Especially mainstream-media bloggers like Matthew Yglesias, who regularly drops names of people I’ve never heard of, and the like, on his blog on Slate. I guess now I qualify to blog on Slate.