Abstract
On Monday, March 26, oral arguments began in NFIB v. Sebelius. The allotted time had been extended from an already unprecedented five-and-a-half hours to six. First up was the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), for which the Court appointed a lawyer, Robert A. Long, to argue that the AIA barred all challenges to the mandate (the Court occasionally appoints lawyers to give arguments that neither party is willing to give).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Ilya Somin, “Lessons from the Rise of Legal Conservatism,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 32 (2009): 415.
Ilya Somin, “Closing the Pandora’s Box of Federalism: The Case for Judicial Restriction of Federal Subsidies to State Governments,” Georgetown Law Journal 90 (2002): 461.
John Eastman, “Restoring the General to the General Welfare Clause,” Chapman Law Review 4 (2001): 63.
Cong. Research Service, The Constitution of the United States: Analysis & Interpretation, Doc. No. 111–39 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2010), 201.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78, ed. Clinton Rossiter (1961).
Wanda Franz, “Gonzalez v. Carhart: A Litmus Test for Presidential Candidates,” National Right to Life News 34 (2007): 3, http://www.nrlc.org/news/2007/NRL08/ PresidentColumnPage3.html. Quoting then-Senator Barack Obama, “I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.”
David E. Bernstein, Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights against Progressive Reform (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011).
Jeffrey Rosen, The Most Democratic Branch: How the Courts Serve America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).
Neil Seigel and Robert Cooter, “Collective Action Federalism: A General Theory of Article I, Section 8,” Stanford Law Review 63 (2010): 115.
Editor information
Copyright information
© 2013 Randy E. Barnett, Jonathan H. Adler, David E. Bernstein, Orin S. Kerr, David B. Kopel, Ilya Somin, and Trevor Burrus
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barnett, R.E., Adler, J.H., Bernstein, D.E., Kerr, O.S., Kopel, D.B., Somin, I. (2013). Argument. In: Burrus, T. (eds) A Conspiracy Against Obamacare. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137363732_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137363732_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-36374-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-36373-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)