Politico’s Arena asks: Is President Obama right that a Supreme Court rejection of the Affordable Care Act would be an act of judicial activism? Brookings’ Darrell West answers.

AEI’s Jonah Goldberg on why Justice Kennedy should rule ‘no’ on “Obamacare:” “Justice Anthony Kennedy is, in a sense, the king of the United States of America. As the deciding vote on the U.S. Supreme Court in dozens of important cases where the liberals and conservatives are evenly divided, he has become, in effect, a jurisprudential monarch (hence columnist Mark Steyn’s nickname for him, “the Sultan of Swing”). He has been the final word on everything from the 2000 Bush-Gore presidential election to partial-birth abortion and terrorist detention. And now he will, in all likelihood, decide the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act— aka ObamaCare.” (USA Today)

Would the overturning of “Obamacare” help President Obama? “Obamacare may be President Obama’s proudest legislative achievement, but the fact is it has been a political disaster for Democrats. The unpopular law has galvanized Obama’s conservative opponents, driven away moderates and independents, and hung like an albatross around the neck of the U.S. economy. A decision by the Supreme Court to overturn the law in its entirety could be the best thing that ever happened to Obama’s prospects for reelection,” writes AEI’s Marc Thiessen. (Washington Post)

Victor Davis Hanson: “Iran, if not stopped, will join the nuclear club, probably within two or three years. It may be stupid to try to preempt Iran; it may be even stupider not to try. But the stupidest assumption of all is that either Iran is not enriching uranium in order to obtain a weapon, or it might through negotiations or sanctions be persuaded to give up trying.” (National Review)

“With the U.S. economy yielding firmer data, some researchers are beginning to argue that recoveries from financial crises might not be as different from the aftermath of conventional recessions as our analysis suggests. Their case is unconvincing,” write Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff. (Bloomberg)

“American progressives from Woodrow Wilson and John Dewey to Barack Obama and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have long expressed dissatisfaction with what they see as the constraints of an outmoded 18th-century Constitution. For more than a hundred years, progressives have sought to “transform” America, to make the political, economic, cultural, and legal foundation of our constitutional republic (our “regime,” in the Aristotelian-Tocquevillian sense) more statist, more centralized, more regulatory, more “European,” more secular, and less capitalist, less entrepreneurial, less “provincial,” less religious, less “exceptional,” writes Hudson’s John Fonte. (National Review)

“Ignoring the religious and ideological roots of Islamist terrorism carries a heavy price; not thoroughly investigating the Kahane assassination meant overlooking materials that could have prevented the World Trade Center bombing in 1993; and Merah’s apprehension sooner would have saved lives. Islamism must be squarely faced to protect ourselves from future violence,” writes Hoover’s Daniel Pipes. (National Review)

Cato’s Julian Sanchez: Cell phone location surveillance: Now at a police dept. near you! (Cato)

Room for Debate asks: Are the Olympics more trouble than they’re worth? (New York Times)

Manhattan Institute’s Nicole Gelinas: New York’s risky luxury investments. (New York Post)

Cato’s Andrews Coulson: On school choice, Jews can have their Lekach and eat it too. (Cato)