In the comments to my post of yesterday titled, “Welcome Back, Supreme Court Justices! (Well, for the next two weeks, anyway.),” Angry Bear colleague Dan Becker wrote: Hi Bev, I have read about this case. Still unclear even after reading your piece as to what the law was for, to do and how the new […]
Well, it’s that time of year again—when the Supreme Court justices interrupt their primary careers of flitting around the world (some of them), or at least around the country (the remainder of them), to teach a law school course or two, to instruct high court justices in other countries on how to feign working full-time, […]
I think Thomas Jefferson would have said the more speech, the better. That’s what the First Amendment is all about. So long as the people know where the speech is coming from. … You are entitled to know where the speech is coming from — you know, information as to who contributed what. — Justice […]
Lost in the shuffle here is the question of what it is Romney is denying he’s responsible for. Stipulate that Romney somehow had nothing to do with running a company of which he was the CEO and sole shareholder. Does he think, in retrospect, that his subordinates did something wrong by offshoring jobs? Clearly he […]
Via NYT Toward a Supreme Court Showdown Six federal courts have ruled on the Defense of Marriage Act and reached the same conclusion: the 1996 law violates the Constitution by denying same-sex couples, who are legally married under state law, federal benefits afforded to heterosexual couples for no good reason. The issue has now officially […]
by Linda Beale Tax Foundation Misses the Ball (again) in its analysis of Supreme Court Health Care Ruling The Tax Foundation pretends to be non-partisan. Of course we all know that is pretense. Look at the way it has pushed its concept of the so-called “tax freedom day”, which misleads everyday Americans into thinking that […]
I think there was a clue to Roberts’ thinking during the first day of argument—during the argument on the applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act, an obscure “jurisdictional” statute, which precludes courts from ruling on the constitutionality of a federal tax until after the statute becomes effective and the tax actually is due. Roberts really indicated […]
While the Court’s upholding the mandate is deservedly taking front stage in the media coverage, the Court’s decision to strike down a part of the Medicaid expansion may ultimately have broader jurisdprudential consequence. That, at least, will be a subject of debate among lawyers and academics in the days and weeks to come. This is […]
UPDATE: From SCOTUSblog: “The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government’s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.” TOTAL, TOTAL VICTORY !!!! SECOND UPDATE: The opinion is 5-4, with Roberts voting with the Dem appointees and writing the opinion, and Kennedy writing the main dissent. Here’s […]
Amy Howe, Anticipating the health-care decision: In Plain English, SCOTUSblog”: …there are four questions before it. Three of those questions revolve around the “minimum coverage” provision, popularly known as the “individual mandate.” …But before the Court can decide whether the mandate is constitutional, it must first decide whether it can even rule on this question […]