As promised yesterday, I have more extended thoughts about Noel Canning as part of SCOTUSBlog’s symposium on the decision. Here’s how my piece begins:

For those who care primarily about partisan politics, labor law, or the narrative of executive overreach, the Court’s decision today in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning is a unanimous one. But for those who care primarily about constitutional interpretation, history, or originalism, the case represents a deep divide. Or at least it seems to.

In the second part of the piece (“Stepping back from the question of interpretive methodology and into a narrower role as critic …”) I also discuss the arbitrariness of the majority’s rule (“a whiff of magic”) and the question of how long the appointments last.

I wrote my piece before reading theirs, but you can find the opposing perspective from Eric Posner and Peter Shane.