Blog

We consider two questions arising from Patchak’s action. The first is whether the United States has sovereign immunity from the suit by virtue of the Quiet Title Act(QTA), 86 Stat. 1176. We think it does not. The second is whether Patchak has prudential standing to challenge the Secretary’s acquisition. We think he does. We therefore hold that Patchak’s suit may proceed.

Justice Kagan writes in Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak.

Wait, “we think” he has standing. Think? Isn’t standing something you have to be sure about? (whether standing is jurisdictional or not).

This may just be a nice way of standing, but think it just strikes me the wrong way.

In Fairey v. Tucker, a Habeas case out of the Fourth Circuit. I still say so what.

The two justices who are thought to be most in play in deciding whether the law is a constitutional exercise of Congress’ power are Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Both were overwhelmingly skeptical of the law in their questioning, Malphurs found.

Kennedy, considered the pivotal justice in almost all of the court’s ideological conflicts, used about three-quarters of his questions and comments to challenge Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. and the other government lawyers defending the law.

Roberts challenged the pro-health care law position 44 times during the hearings, compared with 14 statements or questions that Malphurs deemed confrontational to those opposing the law.

Overall, each side received about the same number of challenging statements and questions from the bench. But that is only because the ideological wings of the court played their expected parts.

On the liberal front, Justice Sonia Sotomayor directed 86 percent of her challenging statements or questions to the lawyers opposing the health-care act, followed by Justices Elena Kagan (81 percent), Stephen G. Breyer (77 percent) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (70 percent), Malphurs found.

On the conservative side, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. directed 95 percent of his challenging questions toward the government’s lawyers, followed by Justice Antonin Scalia at 87 percent, Kennedy at 80 percent and Roberts at 76 percent.

Justice Clarence Thomas, as is his custom for years now, did not ask questions. His colleagues more than made up for it.

Malphurs found that questions and comments from the justices consumed almost three hours, about as much time as the advocates had. Scalia spoke most often, followed closely by Sotomayor. Roberts was third.

Breyer spoke up less often, but made up for it with customary lengthy hypotheticals and complicated set-up questions. Malphurs found that, over the three days, Breyer spoke for about 30 minutes, more than any other justice.

From WaPo

Banning big sodas or indiscriminately stopping-and-frisking people (almost exclusively minorities)?

It’s interesting that Bloomberg’s policies about the former enrage libertarians far more than his policies with respect to the latter.

If you ask me, the stop-and-frisk bullshit is infinitely worse.

At the White House, which has much riding on the case, top officials continue to project confidence that the court will rule in its favor and that the administration will move on to put the law into force. But White House allies and advocates of the new law do not necessarily share that view and are gearing up in the event of an unfavorable decision . .  .

After a burst of prognostication around oral arguments over the health care law, known as the Affordable Care Act, groups on both sides have fallen back into a state of nervous anticipation. No one is certain how the court will rule, or how the politics will shake out in the aftermath.

Lawmakers, political strategists and activists are preparing for three contingencies: the court upholds the law, the court invalidates the insurance-purchasing mandate but preserves most of the law, or the court throws out the law, Mr. Obama’s signature domestic achievement. In the event that the law it is crippled or eviscerated, the contest will be to ensure that the other party is held responsible, not only for the popular provisions that are lost but what comes next for the 46 million Americans still without health insurance.