on Oct 21, 2010 at 9:05 am
With challenges to the individual health insurance mandate continuing to make their way through the lower courts, commentators have begun to speculate on how the Court might decide the case. In a blog post for the Washington Post, Ezra Klein opines that the mandate is constitutional, but he suggests that â€œpartisan forcesâ€ may play a role in the decision. The Atlanticâ€™s Megan McArdle agrees that the Court will likely â€œbe extremely reluctant to strike down the individual mandate for a whole host of reasons,â€ but she expresses doubts that â€œpolitical worries will be among them.â€ Â Â And SCOTUSblogâ€™s Lyle Denniston assesses the chances that the issues will reach the Court in the near future.Â
In response to recent commentary about the propriety of the Justicesâ€™ political conduct â€œoutside the courtroom,â€ the Room for Debate Blog of the New York Times hosts a five-part discussion about whether Supreme Court Justices should â€œshow restraint in airing their political views.â€ The debaters consider whether Supreme Court Justices should be expected â€œto show greater decorum and neutrality than other political actors,â€ or whether the public might â€œbenefit from their being more transparent about their views.â€
- At the Opinionator Blog of the New York Times, Timothy Egan points to the advertising surrounding the Colorado elections as evidence that Citizens United â€œfundamentally changed how we choose or leaders and our laws, all for the worse.â€
- The voicemail message left by Virginia Thomas, Justice Thomasâ€™s wife, for Anita Hill continues to generate discussion. Among others, Jess Bravin of the Wall Street Journal and Dahlia Lithwick of Slate have coverage.
- At the Huffington Post, Sam Stein asks whether the presence of Justices Scalia and Thomas at â€œseminars sponsored by the energy giant and conservative bankroller Koch Industriesâ€ raises judicial ethics questions.