Justice Stevens abhors a system in which “majorities or powerful interest groups always get their way,” post [Stevens dissent], at 56, but replaces it with a system in which unelected and lifetenured judges always get their way. That such usurpation is effected unabashedly, see post, at 53—with “the judge’s cards . . . laid on the table,” ibid.—makes it even worse. In a vibrant democracy,
Popular Posts
-
Williams v. Illinois: bad Confrontation Clause result, but not a major setback: plurality only. Alito writes for plurality. Dissenting coali...
-
Individual mandate okayed as a tax.
-
Beyond what I wrote yesterday about Perry (which now seems improbable in light of Kennedy's blather for the Court in Windsor, and Scalia...
-
My prediction about the outcome was basically right, but I was seriously wrong about, and unfair to, Justice Kennedy. Not only would he stri...
-
Scotusblog dealing with rumors - unsubstantiated and unlikely, TBTG -- that Pres will attend Court session. That could actually raise separa...
-
The mighty Ed Whelan has noticed it too. He also takes on the question: who in fact wrote the "joint dissent"? Ed first floats th...
-
The Wall Street Journal agrees with me -- and explains, better than I did or probably could, exactly why the taxing power discovered in the ...
-
Back now.I. Obamacare and RaichWhile we're watching and analyzing the Obamacare oral arguments, I'll add only this: I see no reason ...
-
The Williams v. Illinois plurality opinion could be subtitled "Trial Judges Never Get Confused." That's certainly an assumptio...
-
Tom Goldstein (Scotusblog): "The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to ...