Monday round-up

Nearly two weeks after the Court issued its decision in the health care cases, the medias focus on those cases shows no signs of slowing down.

At CBS, Jan Crawford reports that the discord at the Court has become deep and personal, with the conservative Justices feel[ing] a sense of betrayal from the Chief Justices decision to uphold the individual mandate. Relatedly, in an interview with NPRs Nina Totenberg,Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit suggests that the leaks from the Court could backfire.

Commentary on the Courts opinion and analysis of its consequences also continue. At UPI, Michael Kirkland focuses on the Chief Justices characterization of the penalty for failure to buy insurance as a tax, as do Richard Grant ofForbes, Paul Moreno in an op-ed for theWall Street Journal, andthe editorial board at Bloomberg View. Discussing the opinion more broadly at theVolokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler explains why, although he does not agree with the Chief Justices approach to the health care cases, he nonetheless think[s] we can understand it. Finally,Stephen Ohlemacherof the Associated Press reports that the decision has renewed concerns about the IRSs capacity to enforce the mandate, while NPRs Carrie Johnson explains how the opinion may affect civil rights legislation, which is often grounded in the Commerce Clause and Congresss Spending Power.

Atthis blog, Tom provides a minute-by-minute account of coverage of the release of the health care decision; atForbes,Dan Diamond discusses Toms post.

Briefly:

• At theLos Angeles Times, David Savage analyzes the Terms most prominent cases and concludes that the Courts decisions this year reflect shifting coalitions among the Justices rather than a true ideological shift.
• In theWashington Post, Robert Barnes reports on the Justices use of Google to routinely supplement their arguments with facts, studies, media reports, law review articles and other materials that none of the parties in the case before them ever put forward or countered.
• At the Wall Street JournalsLaw Blog, Joe Palazzolo explores the possibility that the Courts next juvenile sentencing case will addressed the constitutionality of fixed terms resulting in a sentence that exceeds a defendants life expectancy, which some argue is a de facto sentence of life without parole.
• The editorial board of theWashington Postpraises the Courts recent decision in Jackson v. HobbsandMiller v. Alabama, in which the Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a sentencing scheme that requires life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders.
• AtSalon, Glenn Greenwald discusses Justice Elena Kagans vote on the Medicaid coercion theory in the context ofseveral other cases in which she has joined with the Courts more conservative Justices.
• Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick considers why liberals, unlike conservatives, do not get angry when one of their Justices fails to deliver and concludes that, to some extent, they should.
• Also atSlate, Jonathan Peters debunks the myth that the Court is immune from leaks, chronicling the institutions long and colorful history of leaks that dates back to the mid-19thcentury.
• At theDaily Beast, David Dow argues that it may be time to reconsider judicial review, in light of the fact that the fate of the most significant piece of domestic legislation of the past 50 years hinged on the viewpoint of a single man.
• Diana Henriques of theNew York Timesexamines the consequences ofJanus Capital v. First Derivative Traders, the Courts2011 case holding that, because a mutual fund investment adviser did not make the false statements included in the mutual fund prospectuses of its clients, the fund could not be held liable in a private action under SEC Rule 10b(5).