- Prediction: Homeland Security to emerge as major regulatory agency prescribing security rules to private sector [Stewart Baker] Regulators fret: air travel’s gotten so safe it’s hard for us to justify new authority [Taranto via Instapundit] “Romney’s regulatory plan” [Penn RegBlog]
- Claim: frequent expert witness in Dallas court proceedings is “imposter” [PoliceMisconduct.net]
- “‘Temporary’ Takings That Cause Permanent Damage Still Require Just Compensation” [Ilya Shapiro, Cato]
- On the ObamaCare decision’s wild card, the ruling on “coercive” conditions on Medicaid grants under the Spending Clause [Mike McConnell, Ilya Somin] Ramesh Ponnuru argues that ruling is no victory for supporters of limited government [Bloomberg]
- D.C.’s historic Shaw neighborhood near Cato Institute narrowly escaped planners’ bulldozer [Greater Greater Washington, WaPo]
- Michelle Obama on the right track with an idea on occupational licensure but should take it farther [Mark Perry]
- Everyone’s a judicial critic: Auto-Correct proposes replacing “Posner” with “Poisoner.”
Posts Tagged ‘Cato Institute’
Obamacare decision roundup
- “We won everything but the case.” Ilya Shapiro at SCOTUSBlog on what it’s like to have your arguments succeed while your client goes down. Recommended;
- David Kopel applauds, especially the Medicaid ruling limiting strings on federal support of states;
- Michael Greve turns thumbs down: “the Chief’s supposed act of statesmanship has bought nothing that is worth having.”
- Clark Neily: “as litigators know very well, it is always more important what a court did than what it said. … Notwithstanding the majority’s assurances … the Court ratified what many perceive as the most significant expansion of federal power in 75 years.”
- John Podhoretz: Roberts’ artful dodgery on tax issue does the Court no credit. Similarly: Jim Huffman;
- From a David Frum reader: did Roberts bail because the four justices to his right got too frisky on severability?
- And Cato’s star-packed event looking at the meaning of the NFIB v. Sebelius decision will take place live on the web this coming Monday, Jul. 2, 1:30-4:45 Eastern.
SCOTUS upholds ObamaCare mandate as tax
For the real reaction and analysis, you should check with my expert Cato colleagues here and here and (Ilya Shapiro) here. Here are a few additional things I had to say on Twitter, in reverse chronological order (with occasional, but not continuous, updating):
Yet more “cheer up, conservatives” readings, these from @NRO: [Garnett] [Whelan]
Roberts, Kennedy “delivered victory to the right in the one [battle] that mattered” [Scocca via Moller]
James Fallows: Constitution means whatever 19 of 21 con law profs say it means [Bernstein]
RT @davidfrum Randy Barnett’s Win
Why didn’t style-stickler Scalia clean up “majority status” scraps? Daring @David_M_Wagner theory: there wasn’t time
RT @Sam_Schulman look forward to Variorum Edition. RT @jpodhoretz: @Sam_Schulman @walterolson It’s a palimpsest! ?#dissent
Why’d the dissent need to include a big discussion of severability? Another fossil record of former majority-opinion status?
RT @PunditReview Great news, @walterolson will join us Sunday evening at 7:30 on WRKO to discuss the Obamacare ruling. #awesome #mapoli [Update: podcast here]
RT @Popehat Masterful rebuke to a comment troll MT @walterolson Bitch you in MY HOUSE NOW!
Balkinization blog entitled to victory lap for identifying path to today’s ruling;
Hee hee. “Romney website: ‘Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of CJ Roberts’” [@Jamie_Weinstein]
Commenter: Nyaah nyaah, you @overlawyered types say you’re anti-litigation but favored suit vs. ObamaCare. My response;
RT @robinmarty: It’s good that ACA is upheld, since there are some folk at CNN who will need insurance not tied to their employers soon…
“It now falls to Congress…” My colleague Roger Pilon on today’s ruling [Real Clear Politics]
What gets lost in today’s “tax but not a tax” ruling: political accountability [@mfcannon] [Bader]
Here’s a 6/20 prediction from @jtlevy calling it closer than anyone I’ve seen (via Virginia Postrel)
Stop beating on Roberts, he’s living up to “conservative minimalist” billing [Adler] [Ted Frank]
Randy Barnett: Cheer up, both federalism and enumerated powers doctrine did well today [SCOTUSblog]
Roberts avoided confrontation w/prevailing academic gestalt of feds’ Commerce Clause power [@lsolum]
More on “tax power yes, commerce power no” [Epstein] [@ishapiro] [Kerr]
Did Roberts chop down the broccoli stalk, or could it grow back as “tax”? [Somin] [@ProfBainbridge]
Evidence that Scalia’s Obamacare dissent drafted as majority opinion before a Roberts switch [Solum]
Cheer up: at least Roberts chopped down the broccoli stalk & bolstered states against feds [John Steele Gordon]
A tax, yet a non-tax: why court didn’t invoke Anti-Injunction Act to toss challenge [Tejinder Singh, @SCOTUSblog]
RT @TCBurrus Another Justice Roberts is now the new switch in time that saved nine. #SCOTUS #healthcare
RT @JasonKuznicki Americans: Pay this tax or buy a private company’s product. Corporatism at its worst, cheered on by the left. #aca
Roger Pilon: Ruling only a bump in road [@CatoInstitute] Legal battle’s just begun [Adler/Cannon]
RT @CatoInstitute Unhappy with today’s #SCOTUS decision on #ObamaCare? Watch this video on how states can refuse to go along with it
Per Goldstein at SCOTUSBlog, Roberts reasoning on Commerce Clause is super-narrow, won’t help the libertarian side much in future cases.
Exploding-cigar ad hominem argument of the day: RT @MaxKennerly Has John Roberts gone even a minute in his life without health insurance?
The clouded crystal ball: “Why Chief Justice Roberts Won’t Side with the Liberals on Obamacare” [on @NRO yesterday]
@sethmnookin I’m not convinced achievements are as big a motivator as “stop our evil opponents” outrage, which Roberts undercut (for Dems).
Can’t say I’m surprised at ACA. With rare exceptions, the Court behaves as a small-c conservative institution.
Republican outlook for November just got big boost. So maybe Jeff Toobin’s right to claim Roberts looks after GOP interests.
RT @@NYDNHammond Robertscare
RT @Hudsonette: haha RT @delrayser: CONVENE THE DEATH PANELS!
Tom Goldstein of @SCOTUSBlog predicts Court will uphold ACA
“Liberals shouldn’t defend FDR’s attacks on the Court” [Megan McArdle]
“All indications are Dems planning all out assault on the court if it overturns PPACA” Don’t, says @toddeberly
RT @macrmccoy I love Web 2.0. RT @ABAJournal: Obama Will Learn Fate of Health Care Law Through SCOTUSblog, Media
“Judicial activism!” placards all made up. Now the only question is which side to hand them to come 10 a.m. [Alt]
Randy Barnett thanks those who made the SCOTUS ObamaCare challenge possible [@VolokhC]
RT @santaclaralaw #healthcarereform? Randy Barnett interview with Politico: You can find it here. #sculaw
June 28 roundup
- Cato Institute settles lawsuit over its governance [Adler]
- As regulators crack down on payday lending, Indian tribes fill the gap [Business Week] Tribal leaders say they are at war with the CFPB, and no, there is no Elizabeth Warren angle [Kevin Funnell]
- “SEA LAWYER. A shark.” [1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue via Nancy Friedman]
- Trial lawyers in Oklahoma, as in Texas and Florida, endow slate of favored GOP candidates [Tulsa World]
- Simple reforms could ease path to more interstate adoptions of foster kids [Jeff Katz, Washington Post]
- “Can you say ‘overzealous service mark claimant’?” [@internetcases]
- “Today, anyone can sue anyone else, regardless of how ridiculous the claim may be. But it wasn’t always like this.” [Don Elliott, The Atlantic]
Police misconduct report map
A new Cato Institute project. More: Tim Lynch, Cato; Scott Shackford, Reason.
P.S. Destined for the map? “Police officer fired for driving 143 mph while drunk gets his job back” [BoingBoing]
Monday afternoon: “Stand Your Ground” at Cato
The 4 p.m. panel discussion Monday at Cato’s Washington, D.C. headquarters will be free and open to registered participants here. You can also follow it live online at www.cato.org/live and join the conversation on Twitter with the hashtag #CatoEvents.
Cato internships for graduating law students
Ilya Shapiro has the details at Cato at Liberty about a way to soften the discomfort of a still-weak job market for law grads:
…the Cato Institute invites graduating (and recently graduated) law students and others with firm deferrals or post-grad funding—or simply a period of unemployment—to apply to work at our Center for Constitutional Studies. This is an opportunity to assist projects ranging from Supreme Court amicus briefs to policy papers to the Cato Supreme Court Review. Start/end dates are flexible.
April 11 roundup
- “Public pool owners struggle to meet chair-lift deadline” [Springfield, Ill. Journal-Register, earlier]
- Punitive damages aren’t vested entitlement/property, so why the surprise they’d be cut off in an administered Chrysler bankruptcy? [Adler]
- More on how Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization would chip away rights of accused [Bader, Heritage, earlier]
- Defending sale of raw milk on libertarian principle shouldn’t mean overlooking its real risks [Greg Conko/CEI; Mark Perry on one of many heavy-handed enforcement actions against milk vendors]
- More tributes to longtime Cato Institute chairman Bill Niskanen [Regulation magazine (PDF), earlier]
- Asbestos lawyers wrangle about alleged swiping of client files [Above the Law]
- “Nathan Chapman & Michael McConnell: Due Process as Separation of Powers” [SSRN via Rappaport, Liberty & Law]
Podcast on “Stand Your Ground” laws
In today’s Cato Daily Podcast, I correct some of the flagrant misconceptions that keep circulating about Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, and in particular discuss why the law makes no difference at all (under current evidence) in assessing George Zimmerman’s legal guilt or innocence in the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Earlier/background here. And Eugene Volokh has a great post here on the nature of the supposed “duty to retreat,” which I mention in the podcast, with more here.
Think tank confidential
Over at Secular Right, I’ve done a lengthy post about think tanks, more specifically about the future of the policy think tank model in light of the controversy over control of my own Cato Institute. It’s also got some memoir-ish material in it in which I recall times over the years in which I felt relatively proud of having an effect on public debate. You can read it here.
P.S. Kind words from Ryan Radia and Pierre Lemieux.