Even if the ACA narrowly survives, David Frum is in for a rude awakening: Even though the Solicitor General reportedly choked today, that doesn't change the fact that the conservatives on the Court have spent most of their intellectual lives railing against judicial activism. Well,...
health care
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,.
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 the plainly constitutional regulatory framework established by the rest of the act: General Verrilli, you...
Since I was skeptical about whether the Court was seriously considering using a jurisdictional ruling to dodge the constitutional issue ex ante, the oral arguments yesterday certainly did nothing to.
I have a piece up at the Prospect about the obvious constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. In particular, the "activity/inactivity" distinction cooked up by conservatives to get the ACA.
it turns out he's somewhat opposed, if we can interpret "social programs led to the collapse of the British Empire" and "the British National Healthcare system is a devastating program that makes it dependent" as opposition. A couple summers ago I wrote a post here...
Tonight, Politico hands Paul Ryan its award for Health Care Policymaker of the Year. Because inside the Beltway, actually crafting useful policy that helps people is meaningless. No doubt it's.
As Paul mentioned, as expected the Supreme Court will be hearing the case. Perhaps the most interesting thing is that the Court will be having a longer-than-usual argument about the.
The interesting thing about the lead opinion is that it was written by Laurence Silberman, a judge with impeccable conservative credentials. As Jon says, it's a straightforward but very strong opinion, and he's particularly good on the meaningless of the "activity/inactivity" distinction.
I strongly recommend John Sides's post, and for that matter I also strongly recommend On Deaf Ears and the Strategic Presidency, the most essential readings about the presidency this side.
On the monetary side are even worse than ours. In a bit of black comedy, on the other side of the page, Ross Douthat argues that the Obama administration did.