Blog

In remarks yesterday in Kansas City, I think the President said more than he intended when characterizing his decision to delay the employer mandate:

One of the main objections that’s the basis of this suit is us making a temporary modification to the health care law that they said needed to be modified.  (Laughter.)  So they criticized a provision; we modify it to make it easier for business to transition; and that’s the basis for their suit.  Now, you could say that, all right, this is a harmless political stunt — except it wastes America’s time.  You guys are all paying for it as taxpayers.  It’s not very productive.  But it’s not going to stop me from doing what I think needs to be done in order to help families all across this country.  (Applause.)

Modify is a synonym for change. This is precisely what the President did. He changed the law by extending deadlines, altering reporting requirements, and exempting certain companies from the mandate. He can’t modify, or change the law.

What the President meant–but didn’t say–is that he was using his discretion to delay the enforcement of the law. But he said what he knew is the case. He changed the law.

Also, I’m not sure that the delay helped families. It exempted businesses from providing health insurance to their employees. I’m not sure if the people in the audience even know what they’re applauding for.

Putting aside the issue of standing for a moment, I will love to see the government’s brief on the merits. Quotes like this won’t help. Remember when he said that Obamacare was not a tax?

At long last, Wolters Kluwer has posted the “Connected Casebook” page. It is hosted with Barristers Books, an online retailer of textbooks (I used them a few times while in law school). This new site has made clear that you are renting a new book,at discount. You can’t buy the connected version without renting the physical book. For the 8th edition of Dukeminier & Krier, the hardcover version is $218.95 and the Connected Casebook is $156.10 (about a 30% savings). (Although, if you check on Chegg, the rental prices are usually 90% off, though you have to return it in pristine condition). There are FAQs here. The terms and conditions are here.

In short, Aspen is working with BarristerBooks to run a rental program. Unlike most rentals, such as Chegg, they are not interested in reselling the books, and reinjecting them into the used market. You get a brand new book, and you can write in the book as much as you want. At the end of the semester, you can return it without any damage fee, regardless of the condition. This will be a benefit to students who like to write in books. I understand WK will be providing a prepaid mailer. If you don’t return the book, you pay a “replacement fee, equal to the “price difference between what you have paid (initial rental fee + late fee) and the publisher list price of the non-Connected Casebook version of your book.” I understand a credit card will be kept on file.

Please keep in mind that before us law profs blew this up in May, Aspen was planning on *only* offering the connected version. This would have been the *only* way to buy the book. I understand that focus group testing suggested that students would love a discounted version of the book, with lots of electronic freebies, as an alternative. But I can’t imagine any majority of students, or *any* law professors could have favored a regime where this was the only option. Walk into any law professor’s office (except for mine), and you will see a library of books amassed over decades. I’m glad Aspen has corrected course. Now students will have the option, with the benefit of informed knowledge.

 

The day after a cert petition was filed in King v. Burwell, the United States has filed a petition for rehearing en banc in Halbig v. Sebelius. I’ll have more to say about each petition later. For now, the government asserts that rehearing is necessary to avert “disastrous consequences.”

The majority ignored those teachings, risking “disastrous consequences.” Dissent 3. The disruption threatened by the panel majority’s erroneous interpretation and the direct conflict with King present a question of “exceptional importance” warranting en banc consideration.

Responses should be filed around the same time in each.

During an interview with Katie Couric, Justice Ginsburg gave us an insight into her jabot closet–but even more than that, she gave us a glimpse into the secret world of doilyology. Much like Kremlinology, we can now use the jabot draped around RBG’s punam to predict her authored opinions a given day. You see RBG wears different collars when she is reading a majority, or dissenting opinion. (An RBG clerk told me this some time ago, but I wasn’t able to make it public. Now I can).

There’s only one way to test this new theory of Doilyology. Compare her chosen jabots with our only window into the fortress of solitude at One First Street NE. Courtartist Art Lien!

First, we have the “majority collar.” RBG explains:

This one is my majority opinion collar. So when I’m announcing an opinion for the Court, this is the collar I wear. This was a gift from my clerks.

 

So let’s check the archives. Here is Justice Ginsburg delivering the majority opinion in Wood v. Moss. That is most definitely the golden majority jabot!

It’s quite regal!

Although, the majority jabot may be somewhat recent. Here is RBG in 2011 delivering the opinion for the Court in CSX v. McBride, with a standard, run of the mill jabot–what I call the teacup neck doily.

Second, we have the dissenting doily (dissentoily?). RBG explained, “This is my dissenting collar.” Couric replied, “Why is that.” RBG answered,  “It looks fitting for dissents.” This neck-bling is so shiny it can give the men in the majority a blind spot.

And, I think we have a match. Here is Art’s sketch of RBG dissenting in Hobby Lobby, while seated next to the doily-less Justice Alito, who delivered the majority opinion. Alito definitely seems to be blinded by the light.

And, you can just make out the shades of the dissenting jabot in this sketch of Argentina v. NML Capital.

Here is RBG dissenting Shelby County v. Holder last term. Definitely the dissenting neck doily.

I think we have a match!

So, all of you enterprising SCOTUS sleuths. When you are sitting in the Court for a hand-down, pay close attention to Justice Ginsburg’s neck–you may be able to figure out what’s what. So let’s add doily-watching to box-counting and waiting-for-Lyle to our Supreme Court traditions.

In case you are interested, Couric gave us a nice shot of RBG’s closet.

 

And this jabot, which is from South Africa:

“This one is my favorite, it’s from South Africa. It’s from Cape Town.”

She wore this jabot in two same-sex weddings she performed. This must be the nuptial doily.

Good thing jabot, and “neck doily” are in the next edition of Black’s Law dictionary.