Law

Court Upholds Abortion Ban
and
April 18, 2007

The Supreme Court upholds the ban on so-called "partial-birth abortions." Here's the decision. Anthony Kennedy turns out not to be the closet liberal many conservatives feared. Ruth Bader Ginsburg gets at the import of this: "For the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman's health." For more context, read this earlier piece by Scott Lemieux.

Dept. Of Let's Change The Subject
and
April 18, 2007

Rudy seems to get it, too. Here, in full, are his detailed ruminations on the Supreme Court's ruling today to uphold the partial-birth abortion ban: The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it. --Adam B. Kushner

In Today's Web Magazine
and
April 15, 2007

The Editors shouldn't have to explain that a congressional hearing is not a "show trial"; the novelist Gish Jen bickers with her family about her grandmother's remains; Benjamin Wittes points out that the Supreme Court's EPA ruling actually leaves all of the most important questions on climate change unanswered; David Gratzer, responding to Jonathan Cohn's piece last week, argues that nationalizing a health plan means limiting access to care; and Richard Jenyns wonders why the poet John Betjeman never caught on in the United States. --Adam B. Kushner

L'etat C'est Moi
and
April 02, 2007

by Linda Hirshman Cass Sunstein has done us all his usual good service by bringing some old-fashionedcivic republican analysis to the newer phenomenon of the blogosphere. That similar trends have been observed in satellite TV and radio reflects, I fear, that the blogosphere at most, reinforces the polarization of the society.

Supreme Court And Climate Change
and
April 02, 2007

by Cass Sunstein Just out: The Supreme Court has ruled against the Bush administration in the climate change case. It is too soon to know whether this is a major development in terms of climate change, but it is a remarkable outcome in terms of the law. The plaintiffs faced several serious obstacles: It was not clear that they had standing, it was not (entirely) clear that EPA's decision was reviewable under the ordinary standards, and it was not clear that the EPA's decision was inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

Climate Change After The Supreme Court
and
April 02, 2007

by Cass Sunstein One of the most interesting questions raised by today's decision is the likely aftermath. In a nutshell, the EPA said that it lacked the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles, and also said that it would decline to regulate greenhouse gases even if it had such authority. The Court ruled (1) that the EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases and (2) that it did not adequately explain why it declined to do so.

In Today's Web Magazine
and
April 02, 2007

Jason Zengerle hangs out with Ned Lamont, who relives his loss to Joe Lieberman every week; Michael E. O'Hanlon judges Robert Gates's first months in office; Michael Currie Schaffer probes the psychology of Matthew Dowd, the Bush turncoat; Rachel Bronson explains why Saudi Arabia is suddenly so chummy with longtime adversary Iran; and, in the wake of yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on the greenhouse-gas emissions, we offer a package of stories from our archives on the EPA--including articles by Al Gore and Ralph Nader. --Adam B. Kushner

Citizen Stengel
and
March 30, 2007

So last weekend, Richard Stengel, managing editor of Time magazine (and the ontological pioneer who brought us "You" as their Person of the Year), went on the Chris Matthews show and explained his view of the U.S. Attorney scandal: I am so uninterested in the Democrats wanting Karl Rove, because it is so bad for them. Because it shows business as usual, tit for tat, vengeance.

Unconstitutional?
and
March 29, 2007

by Jacob T. Levy Over on The Spine, Marty Peretzseemingly endorses state-level divestments from businesses doing business in Sudan. Apart from the merits of divestment as a strategy of effecting change, I have a question: Isn't such a policy unconstitutional? Per Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, states are prohibited from conducting independent foreign policies through economic boycotts; the federal government occupies the whole field of legitimate action on foreign trade. Isn't a divestment policy just a narrow case of an economic boycott?

Democrats On Health Care
and
March 25, 2007

Now that every candidate for president is talking about taking care of the nation's health, the issue is getting murkier and murkier. Naturally, Hillary is angry and is already a caricature of her own self in 1993. Obama is vague. John Edwards is very specific and runs the risk of not getting his message across. The rest of the Democrats say more or less the same words, except for Chris Dodd who adds that he is in favor letting supervisory nurses unionize.

Pages