Confronted with a 'train wreck,' the new archbishop of Baltimore implores us to 'pray diligently as communities, as families and as individuals.'
When President Obama made his famous declaration about how he was confident that “that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” many observers figured the chief executive missed April Fools’ Day by a single digit.
Back in the 1960s, conservatives angry at the Supreme Court's rulings under its liberal chief justice put up billboards with the message: "Impeach Earl Warren." Today, you can order T-shirts and buttons with an updated demand: "Impeach John Roberts."
Former law professor Barack Obama is alleging that a "good example" of judicial activism would be the Supreme Court (in his words, "a group of people") overturning "a duly constituted and passed law."
As an attorney who has argued a number of appellate cases, I can testify that judges' questions during oral arguments are not necessarily a good predictor of the outcome of a case. Judges often use oral argument as a sounding board for competing jurisprudential theories and as a vehicle for playing devil's advocate. The questions asked don't necessarily telegraph how the judges are feeling about the case, or the way they will ultimately rule.
It looks as if it's going to be Mitt Romney after all. With Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush endorsing the former Massachusetts governor last week, there aren't any white knights left to play the role of GOP savior. But that news hasn't reached his competitors yet.
When Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he saw a problem he believed government should solve. Ninety-three percent of the people in the state had health insurance -- including private insurance, Medicare and Medicaid -- but 7 percent did not.
Put aside the Constitutional question for a moment. The Obama Justice Department is also arguing that a mandate is needed to make health insurance work. Are they right?
I am here in California to do the Bill Maher program tonight on HBO (check local listings). I came out a day early because The Lad, the Ladette, and the Grand-Ladette live here and I got to spend time with them.
Media coverage now implies that the U.S. Supreme Court will determine the fate of President Obama's health care law. But nothing the court decides will keep the law alive for more than a brief period of time.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg likes the Indian Healthcare Improvement Act and other ingredients of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka "ObamaCare." Why, she asked toward the end of three days of hearings, shouldn't the court keep the good stuff in ObamaCare and just dump the unconstitutional bits?
After a three-day marathon of oral arguments, during which the Supreme Court considered various facets of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, final impressions everywhere are mixed.
This week, the Supreme Court measured Obamacare to see whether it fits within the confines of the Constitution.
When a 1942 Supreme Court decision that most people never heard of makes the front page of the New York Times in 2012, you know that something unusual is going on.
On Monday, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told the Supreme Court the "shared responsibility payment" required of Americans who fail to obtain government-approved medical coverage is not a tax. On Tuesday, he said it is.
If yesterday was the dramatic climax of the health case, then today is its denouement. The Court will consider two questions today: this morning, If the mandate is unconstitutional, how much, if any, of the PPACA may remain? This afternoon, Is Medicaid expansion coercion of the states?
Journalist: So if you cant defend the study where did you get the sign? Woman: “I picked it up on the ground over there.”
And now, for the main event.
Obama was against the mandate before he was for it.
It's not looking good for the Individual Mandate.
The most important case to reach the Supreme Court, ostensibly since Roe v. Wade, began with the words, “There is no reason to think Congress exempted the penalty as a tax.”