Tuesday round-up

News coverage continues to focus on how the Court might rule on challenges to the constitutionality of health-care reform.  Simon Lazarus, writing for the National Law Journal, argues that the health care mandate cannot be struck down “without exhuming Lochner [v. New York] and the doctrinal apparatus deployed a century ago to abort the modern American regulatory state.”

The Posner study on business interests and the Roberts court (discussed in an Adam Liptak article to which James linked yesterday) has generated additional discussion and commentary.  At Point of Law, Ted Frank argues that “all a 61% ‘pro-business’ rate tells us is that the Supreme Court is more pro-business (or less anti-business) than the courts it is reviewing.” Similarly, at the Volokh Conspiracy Ilya Somin discusses the article in depth and contends that the article has “two important weaknesses:  failure to consider the underlying quality of the two sides’ arguments in ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ business decisions, and the use of a crude definition of what counts as pro-business.”

Briefly:

Posted in: Round-up

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY