With the Court’s April sitting not starting until next week, coverage and commentary continue to focus on the recent challenges to the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
At the Associated Press, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar suggests that the Court may have misunderstood the ACA’s “bronze plan,” which he describes as “broadly similar to today’s so-called catastrophic coverage policies for individuals”; that misunderstanding, he continues, could “cloud Supreme Court deliberations on [the ACA’s] fate, leaving the impression that the law’s insurance requirement is more onerous than it actually is.” And at this blog, Kali Borkoski has a photo essay on the line to attend the ACA arguments at the Court.
Several commentators also took up the issue of “judicial activism” yesterday. At Concurring Opinions, Erica Goldberg asserts that no matter how the Court eventually decides the health care case, “one excellent outcome of the Court hearing the case is that it has us talking more intelligently about ‘judicial activism.’” In an effort at Cato@Liberty to “shed some light” on how President Obama’s recent invocation of the critique “got it wrong,” Roger Pilon examines the changes over the years in the “judicial activism” debate. And at the Volokh Conspiracy, Randy Barnett contends that the term “is too helpful to those who would would criticize a judicial decision with which they disagree without assuming the burden of explaining wh[y]the decision is legally defective.”
Briefly:
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY