In addition to the appalling substantive merits, what is particularly striking about yesterday's a-strip-search-for-jaywalking-is-reasonable case is that the quality of argumentation was shoddy above and beyond the indefensibility of the holding. The justifications offered by Kennedy and Alito were so weak the mere existence of...
Supreme Court
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.
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 a well-regulated militia with a mandate. Is this interstate? Yes. And I’ve given you reasons...
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. .
I have some thoughts at CIF about why the challengers to the ACA simultaneously argue that the mandate isn't a regulation of interstate commerce and is so essential to a.
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,...
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.