A new case in federal courts, if successful, would maim health-care reform
A new case in federal courts, if successful, would maim health-care reform.
Republicans thought they had a monopoly on Constitutional originalism. Not anymore.
If the Supreme Court justices decide to throw out the Affordable Care Act, even partially, we should be clear about the reasons for the failure. It won’t be because Justice Department lawyers bungled their job. Rather, the case will have been lost outside the courts. The White House and its allies in Congress are the ones who failed to do a critical part of their job: to explain and defend to the public not only how the law works, but the constitutional case for upholding it. Leading Democrats didn’t just fail at this task.
As Tuesday’s oral argument on the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate came to a close, several commentators faulted Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s performance. Particularly harsh was CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin, who called the two hour argument “a train wreck for the Obama Administration.” But having sat through the oral argument and re-read the transcript, I have to dissent. Especially on paper, Verrilli’s performance appears quite strong—and possibly more effective than that of his opponents, Michael Carvin and the justly renowned Paul Clement. Here’s why.
[Guest post by Simon Lazarus] As summarized one month ago in a post here on Jonathan Chait’s blog, conservatives reacted with fury to an article I wrote for Slate in which I pointed out that two major components of House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America’s Future closely resemble the much-demonized “individual mandate” in the Affordable Care Act.
[Guest post by Simon Lazarus] Conservative bloggers (at National Review, Weekly Standard, and Hot Air) strenuously dispute a point I elaborated May 3 on Slate – that the Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate” closely resembles major components of House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America’s Future.