By Anne King Back when the Supreme Court granted cert in the Affordable Care Act cases, there was much speculation on how, precisely, the Justices would view the minimum coverage provision of the statute under the Commerce Clause power. In two earlier posts (here and here), I highlighted several interesting (and less discussed) angles on the Commerce Clause discussed in three … [Read more...] about More on the Affordable Care Act Arguments — Commerce Clause Angles from the Amici
Archives for March 2012
By Sushila Rao The distressing tragedy of Trayvon Martin’s death has also unwittingly drawn attention to the role played by an influential but hitherto low-profile organization in getting Stand Your Ground Laws enacted nation-wide. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a business-funded group which describes itself as pursuing a nonpartisan agenda, but has been … [Read more...] about “Smart”ALEC? How Stand Your Ground Laws Became Entrenched Nationwide
By Najan Farley Trayvon Martin’s shooting along with the beating death of Shaima Alawadi has elevated the serious issues of race and religion in the national discourse and consciousness. Although there are many who still debate the influence of race in the Trayvon Martin shooting, I am firmly of the opinion that race and gender were the most important factors in George … [Read more...] about Trayvon Martin and Shaima Alawadi: The Beginning of a Movement
By David Yin The mainstream media and legal blogosphere have covered the oral arguments in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act litigation (Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Florida) ad nauseam. The NYTimes certified, ”[t]here is no tea-leaf reading like Supreme Court tea-leaf reading” and excerpted commentary from notable sources: Lyle Denniston … [Read more...] about How Predictive is Oral Argument Questioning?
By Mark Wilson Reading the brief for the states opposing the Affordable Care Act, one is properly acquainted with the definition of a Jeremiad: “a prolonged lamentation or complaint; also, a cautionary or angry harangue.” The states’ brief is lean on legal arguments and long on exhortations that, if the Supreme Court upholds the mandatory coverage provision of the Affordable … [Read more...] about Its ‘Regulation’ if You’re Already There
By Billy Corriher When the lives of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin collided on February 26, neither one could have understood what was happening. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer, and he mistakenly thought this skinny teenager, walking down the street with candy, was some sort of threat. Martin, on the other hand, had no idea why this stranger was staring at … [Read more...] about Trayvon’s Killing Exposes Festering Wounds of Racism
By Yevgeny Shrago The Environmental Protection Agency proposed a rule today that would effectively end the construction of coal-fired power plants in the United States. The rule, known as a new sources performance standard, will limit the carbon dioxide emissions per megawatt of electricity produced to 1000 pounds of carbon dioxide, nearly half the the coal plant average of … [Read more...] about The Wages of Obstruction
By Peter Dunne What is the optimal means of achieving social change? Are the courts the most appropriate vehicle for implementing progress? Does impact litigation really short-circuit the democratic process? An interesting comparison can be made in the ways which the United States and the United Kingdom both repealed their abortion and sodomy prohibitions. In the United … [Read more...] about UK Equal Marriage Consultation
By Sushila Rao In what Egyptian activists condemn as the latest in a series of acquittals and lenient sentences for policemen accused of the deaths of hundreds of protesters during the 2011 uprising, a court in Egypt has handed down suspended one-year sentences to 11 policemen accused of killing 22 protesters and wounding 44 others on 28 January 2011—the deadliest day of the … [Read more...] about Egyptian Policemen who Killed 22 People Given Suspended Sentences
By Najah Farley On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the United States issued two rulings that give criminal defendants “a constitutional right to a competent lawyer’s advice when deciding to accept a plea bargain.” Justice Kennedy, noting that over 90% of all criminal cases, both state and federal, end in plea bargains, Justice Kennedy stated that the negotiation of the plea … [Read more...] about SCOTUS Weighs in on Plea Bargaining – But do the Decisions “Crash the Justice System”?