Court coverage continues to focus on the President’s comments on the Court and the future of the Affordable Care Act.  At the Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr considers the possible meanings of judicial activism, concluding that “depending on how the decision might be written, a decision striking down the mandate could fairly be called activist in some ways but not in other ways.” At the Washington Post’s The Fact Checker, Josh Hicks examines the President’s remarks and awards them “two Pinocchios—which means creating ‘a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.’” Writing at Forbes, Richard Salsman complains that “most of what the Congress has enacted in the economic sphere over the past century has been unconstitutional, unjust, and illiberal; and sadly, the Court has passively condoned it. So it seems unlikely the Court won’t repeat its mistake in 2012, and condone all or most of” the Affordable Care Act.  And at Balkinization, Rick Pildes warns that “when Presidents take on the Court, even in the mild form of criticizing the Court’s decisions, Presidents walk a delicate line.”

Briefly:

  • At this blog, William Ross looks at the presidential ambitions of past Justices.
  • Buffalo News reports on the effect that last week’s decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders could have on two pending class-action lawsuits on jail strip searches.
  • UPI reports that, in the wake of last month’s arguments on the Affordable Care Act, the Court currently enjoys its highest public opinion ratings in the past two-and-a-half years.

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Nabiha Syed, Tuesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 10, 2012, 9:51 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/04/tuesday-round-up-118/