The New Republic

In the weeks preceding the Obamacare case, many veteran Supreme Court-watchers could not bring themselves to believe that a majority of the justices would find the individual health insurance mandate unconstitutional. But now that the oral argument is over, the consensus has abruptly shifted, with increased focus on the supposedly ironclad opposition between the five “conservative” justices and the four “liberals.” READ MORE >>

If there was one thing of which I was certain going into this week’s Supreme Court hearings, it was that, at worst, the justices would strike down the individual mandate and related coverage positions. In other words, they’d get rid of requirements that insurers cover everybody at a uniform price, on the theory those reforms don’t work without the mandate. But the other major pieces of the law – the expansion of Medicaid to cover 15 million people, the changes to the way Medicare pays hospitals, and so on – would stay. READ MORE >>

Everybody calm down. And when I say everybody, I include myself. Tuesday’s oral argument at the Supreme Court was not the finest hour for health care reform, for the philosophy of activist government, or for Solicitor General Don Verrilli. But oral arguments don’t typically change the outcome of cases. They are important primarily for the signals they send about the justices’ thinking. And those signals can be difficult to interpret. READ MORE >>

My first impression from day two at the Supreme Court: I was more confident yesterday than I am today. With the caveat that I know health policy a lot better than I know law, I can still imagine the justices upholding the individual mandate. But, at this point, I can just as easily imagine them striking it down.  READ MORE >>

READ MORE >>

Lawrence Kaplan: America’s Silent Withdrawal From Iraq War is over.  READ MORE >>

Let’s say that the leader of a foreign country, one with military or economic interests adverse to the United States, took a look at our 2012 elections and decided to spend millions of dollars in hopes of determining which party held control over the House, the Senate, or the White House. Most of us would consider that scenario highly distressing, to say the least. READ MORE >>

Ever since Bush v. Gore, we’ve come to expect that federal courts will divide along predictable ideological lines: Judges appointed by Democrats are supposed to vote for Democratic priorities, while judges appointed by Republicans are supposed to prefer Republican priorities. In short, many people now assume judicial institutions will behave like legislative ones. READ MORE >>

No, I haven't finished analyzing last week's decision, by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, invalidating the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. But plenty of other legal observers have. READ MORE >>

READ MORE >>