In attempting to rebut Koppleman's point that the argument against the ACA has striking parallels with Hammer v. Dagenhart, amidst a bunch of other howlers Althouse inadvertently reaffirms his point: But hospitals must treat emergency patients. It really is a problem that some people use...
constitutional law
Andrew Koppelman is correct that Hammer v. Dagenhart would be the most obvious precedent for a Supreme Court decision striking down the ACA: Both then and now, challengers to the statutes.
Our liberty-loving Supreme Court has once again decided to use the Federalist Society Constitution, the one with the word "suckers" in it that omits the Fourth Amendment. You can now.
Adam Litpak had a good article noting that Verrilli's oral argument appealed to Kennedy with the freedom-enhancing qualities of the Affordable Care Act. This motivated Ann Althouse, who didn't seem to even understand the argument, to respond like a member of their junior high school's...
Given the amount of pushback, I decided to make my argument about legitimacy and the ACA at much greater length. A lot of people seem to think that this particular.
Akhil Reed Amar is making sense: I start with the Constitution here. It’s the power to regulate interstate commerce. Is this a regulation? Yes. It’s just a regulation like regulating.
Jon Cohn has a good post about a subject that's on a lot of minds given the hostile reception the ACA received at the Supreme Court this week: judicial legitimacy. It's worth unpacking the different things this might mean. Certainly, from the standpoint of my...
After going back and forth for a year I ended up being somewhat more pessimistic than a lot of liberal observers before the argument, so I perhaps wasn't as shaken.
Paul Clement is so good that he started his argument today with a devastating rebuttal of his own argument that the mandate is unconstitutional: If the individual mandate is unconstitutional,.
While I'm waiting for my other piece on yesterday's argument, since it's relevant again I thought I'd dip into my nostalgia file and link to my piece about why the slippery slope arguments against the ACA are really dumb. Namely, 1)there's a lot of traction...
Some thoughts about day 2. The key to Kennedy's vote, evidently, is whether he can be convinced that there's a limiting principle. Kennedy, unlike the other conservatives, does seem to.
Much more later about today's argument, but I'd like to address this particular slippery slope hypothetical from Scalia, responding to the government's argument about the necessity of the mandate to.