As coverage of the health care decision finally winds down, discussion of the Court’s next Term begins to ramp up.
On the health care front, Michael Bobelian at Forbes analyzes the Chief Justice’s opinion and concludes that, although the Affordable Care Act “largely survived, the reasoning behind the decision represents a significant victory for conservative jurisprudence” – a “duality,” Bobelian suggests, that “resembles Marbury v. Madison.” At Politico, Darren Samuelsohn and Josh Gerstein report that both Romney and Obama have had success using the Court to fire up their political bases.
As for next Term, as this blog’s Lyle Denniston reported on Friday, two cert. petitions were filed last week challenging the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. JURIST and Reuters also have coverage. In addition, the Washington Post’s Robert Barnes reports on a cert. petition (which Conor also covered in the round-up last Wednesday) that asks the Court to find constitutional protection for the insanity defense. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents the petitioner in the case.]
As Lyle reported last week, the Chief Justice has temporarily stayed a Maryland Court of Appeals decision holding that the collection of DNA samples from arrestees violates the Fourth Amendment. Yvonne Wenger of the Baltimore Sun also has coverage.
Briefly:
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY