The New Republic

Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act “individual mandate” stirred fury on the Right and leery relief on the Left. But the stunning outcome produced bipartisan agreement on one basic point: Roberts’ Solomonic solution—endorsing conservatives’ claim that the mandate breached Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce, but saving the provision itself as a tax—was a politically driven improvisation. READ MORE >>

If you haven't already, please read what Henry Paul Monaghan has to say about the lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act. Monaghan is the Harlan Fiske Stone Professor of Constitutional Law at Columbia. He is also a conservative, in the old school, legal sense of the word. READ MORE >>

Legal critics of the Affordable Care Act insist that their case is consistent not only with the original intent of the Constitution, but also with modern precedent. They say that the individual mandate is so "unprecedented" that it violates contemporary understandings of the "Commerce" and "Necessary and Proper" clauses, which generations of justices and legal scholars have interpreted broadly. 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 >>

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 >>

[with contributions from Matt O'Brien and Darius Tahir]  Five and a half hours -- that's the time Supreme Court justices have set aside for oral arguments in the lawsuits against the Affordable Care Act. And you'll forgive me if I find that a little unsettling. READ MORE >>

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals just issued a decision in the lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act. It looks like a big win for the administration—and, more importantly, for health care reform. I'll have more to say on this later, after I've read the decision more carefully.  But I'll share two quick observations. 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 >>

[Guest post by Simon Lazarus] READ MORE >>