on Jul 16, 2012 at 9:27 am
Three-and-a-half weeks after the Court issued its final decisions for the Term, the media’s 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 weekend’s clippings. At the Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr discusses the prospect that the Chief Justice switched his vote and argues that, although we “don’t know why [he] changed his vote, . . . if it’s 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 Somin responds. And at The New Republic, Leon Wieseltier provides a “citizen-reader’s” interpretation of the health care decision that focuses on two sentences in the opinions, while at The Washington Post (here and here), columnist Jennifer Rubin interviews Randy Barnett and John Yoo about the case.
- The National Law Journal’s 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 the Daily Beast, James Warren reports on Judge Richard Posner’s recent remarks criticizing the Court’s decisions in Citizens United and District 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 Term’s highest-profile cases.