Monday round-up

Three-and-a-half weeks after the Court issued its final decisions for the Term, the medias coverage of the Court has slowed to its standard summer trickle. With no new news emerging on the health care decision, commentary on the opinion and its consequences once again dominates this weekends clippings. At the Volokh Conspiracy,Orin Kerrdiscusses the prospect that the Chief Justice switched his vote and argues that, although we dont know why [he] changed his vote, . . . if its true that he did so out of concerns with legitimacy, that is very different from saying that he did so because he wanted the Court to be popular; Ilya Sominresponds. And at TheNew Republic, Leon Wieseltier provides a citizen-readers interpretation of the health care decision that focuses on two sentences in the opinions, whileat The Washington Post (hereandhere),columnist Jennifer Rubin interviews Randy Barnett and John Yoo about the case.

Briefly:

• TheNational Law Journals Marcia Coyle and Tony Mauro report on interviews with several unnamed Justices, who predict that any rifts among justices in the wake of the landmark health care decision are likely to heal quickly and that collegiality will return when the Court reconvenes for its next term.
• At theDaily Beast, James Warren reports on Judge Richard Posners recent remarks criticizing the Courts decisions inCitizens UnitedandDistrict of Columbia v. Heller.
• Joan Biskupic of Reuters profiles Donald Verrilli and Paul Clement, the current and former Solicitors General, who argued against each other in two of the Terms highest-profile cases.