Defending ‘Obamacare’ constitutionality again, Supreme Court legitimacy and judicial activism and more [AM Briefing]

Defending ‘Obamacare’s’ constitutionality outside of the Supreme Court: “By all accounts, President Obama’s lawyers did a poor job of defending the constitutionality of his signature health-care-reform law in the Supreme Court last week. So he’s rearguing the case himself. On Monday, he declared that it would be an ‘unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the court to overturn a law “passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,’ writes Hoover’s Michael McConnell. (New York Post)

“The latest meme from the Obama administration, congressional Democrats, and much of the media is that if the Supreme Court were to strike down all or part of Obamacare, it would place the Court’s legitimacy itself at risk. After all, since only 28 state attorneys general, at least two District Court Judges and five Circuit Court Judges (including a Clinton appointee), numerous law professors, the 52 organizations and hundreds of state legislators who filed briefs in support of the plaintiffs, and 72 percent of the American public believe that Obamacare’s attempt to force every American to buy a specific commercial product is unconstitutional, it would obviously be an unprecedented act of judicial activism for the Court to agree.” (National Review)

Santorum’s not leaving, given ‘Romneycare:’ “[O]ne of his core arguments is that the author of ‘Romneycare’ — the Massachusetts health-care reform that was a precursor of sorts to ‘Obamacare,’ at least according to Barack Obama and his supporters — is unfit to take on the president in the general election,” writes AEI’s Jonah Goldberg. But will it stop Romney? (National Review)

Manhattan Institute’s Russell Sykes: The perils of Cuomo’s Medicaid reform. (New York Post)

Top Romney surrogate: In general election, women will see Romney’s ‘real views.’ (ThinkProgress)

Room for Debate asks: Should the U.S. leave Afghanistan now? (New York Times)

Student life is much worse at the end of the month than at the beginning. “New research suggests that’s especially true for students from families on food stamps, perhaps because life at home gets more stressful as benefits run out. Modifying the food-stamp program so that benefits are paid out twice, rather than once, a month could help eliminate these cycles,” writes CFR’s Peter Orszag. (Bloomberg)

Allen McDuffee writes about politics and policy and covered think tanks for The Washington Post from 2011 to 2013. He blogs and hosts a podcast at governmentality.net and is currently working on a book about the influence of think tanks in Washington.

politics

Success! Check your inbox for details. You might also like:

Please enter a valid email address

See all newsletters

Comments
Show Comments
Most Read

politics

Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters