About this site

  • Comments
    When you submit a comment, it won't be published until approved. This is to cut down on comment spam. However, I will also edit or block comments that are profane or offensive.
  • No Legal Advice
    Although I may from time to time discuss legal issues on this blog, nothing that I post should be construed as legal advice, nor as creating an attorney-client relationship between you and me. In fact, there's a good chance I'm not licensed to practice law wherever you are. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
  • Personal View
    This blog is neither affiliated with my employer nor hosted by it. It is maintained through TypePad, and I pay the hosting fees. Nothing that is posted here should be construed as anything other than the views of the particular author of the post.
  • Tung Yin's Recent Papers (SSRN)

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      


  • Check Google Page Rank

« Applying SOX (or something like it) to law schools | Main | Interesting column on Islam and naming kids Mohammed »

February 08, 2011


Matthew Lewis

Most liberals (that I read, at least) seem pretty resigned to this coming down mostly to Anthony Kennedy. I think the idea that the court will definitely uphold the individual mandate seriously misreads the Roberts court.

However, I do sympathize with liberals who think it SHOULD pass muster easily. I can easily see the argument for killing it under a strict reading of the commerce clause. But I have a hard time getting that to jive with Wickard and Raich, along with the more general precedent of letting congress do whatever the hell it feels like under the commerce clause.

The comments to this entry are closed.