Posts Tagged: obamacare


"In assessing this option, it’s worth bearing in mind that the dead Obi-Wan did not, in fact, become more powerful than Darth Vader could possibly imagine. His new powers seemed limited to appearing as an apparition offering inscrutable advice to Luke Skywalker, whereas the previous, alive version featured the power to slice people’s arms off with a light saber."

- - Jonathan Chait in the New York Magazine, in an article about ObamaCare in SCOTUS. Yes, there’s an extended Star Wars analogy.

Emily Bazelon and Stephen Colbert make Solicitor General Verrilli’s argument for him re: the Broccoli Debacle of 2012 and quash Scalia’s problem in about two minutes. Also see Slate’s very good What Verrilli Should Have Said (also another what-he-should-have-said at TNR, a reminder of why striking down ObamaCare would be totally crazy-town, Dahlia Lithwick’s reminder of the actual human pain at stake (liberty helps the rich more than the poor, and equality helps primarily only the poor). This SCOTUS debacle and Trayvon Martin have basically engulfed my law school over the past few weeks. Not a particularly cheerful place at the moment, admittedly, but it does make really glad I picked BU.




“You want us to go through 2,700 pages?”

Justice Antonin Scalia, on cutting up the health care reform law. (via theatlantic)

Yo, Scalia, I read both versions of the bill before the final version was passed and it wasn’t even my job to do so. It’s not that difficult.

If Scalia, or anyone else, has a better idea for how the court can do its job, there are plenty of people who would love to hear it. Dartboard? Drawing straws? How about they all just agree to side with Sotomayor?

Nah. Just write cut the chase and write some kind of withering, angry dissent, in which you will doubt mourn the end of capitalism and argue that we are all GOING TO DIE VERY SOON because if the government can tax people if they don’t buy health insurance then probably Hitler will come back from his grave and take us over next week. I mean obviously.


"Since so much has already been written by our sister circuits about the issues presented by this case–which will almost surely be decided by the Supreme Court–we shall be sparing in adding to the production of paper."


- The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding the government’s motion to dismiss a facial challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Pro-tip: if a court says it will be “sparing in adding to the production of paper” instead of saying it will “be brief,” it’s probably not going to be brief. And indeed, this opinion is ONE HUNDRED AND THREE pages. Unless you meant this opinion’s only going to be electronic, judges, that’s not “sparing in adding to the production of paper.”

The judges of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals would not fare so well in my legal writing class.