I will leave it to the constitutional scholars among us to comment on the decision itself. I only have one question to ask: Who out there predicted that the opinion upholding the mandate would have Chief Justice Roberts as the swing vote?
Search the Lounge
Categories
- Academia
- Accreditation
- Administrative Announcements
- Advertising
- Airline News and Views
- Arts and Culture
- Bar Examinations
- Beyond Categorization
- Blogs and Blogging
- Board Diversity
- Books
- Business Organizations
- Calls for Papers
- Clerkships
- Conference News
- Constitutional Law
- Criminal Law
- Culture of Commerce
- Current Affairs
- Deans
- Death Penalty
- Economy and Markets
- Education
- Elections and Voting
- Eugenics
- European Financial Crisis
- Faculty Compensation
- Fairness and Justice
- Family Law_
- Fear
- Film
- Financial Market Regulation
- Food and Drink
- Food, Arts & Culture
- Funny Stuff
- Games
- Gender
- GLBT
- Health
- International Law
- Internet
- Judiciary
- Language
- Law Firms and Practice
- Law Reviews
- Law School Deans
- Law School Hiring
- Law School News
- Legal Education
- Legal History
- Monuments
- Music
- News Media
- Non-Law School Hiring
- Politics
- Privacy
- Property
- Race
- Rankings
- Recent Scholarship
- Religion
- Religion and Faith
- Reparations
- Reproductive Markets
- Scholarship Strategy
- Science
- Sentencing
- Sexuality
- Sporting Life
- Sports
- Starting A Law School
- Stuff You Can't Categorize
- Supreme Court
- Taboo Trades
- Teaching
- Television
- Terrorism
- Travel
- University News
- Web/Tech
- Weblogs
- Writing/Clinic Faculty Searches
Reading Room
- Above The Law
- Adjunct Law Prof Blog
- Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog
- Balkinization
- Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
- Brian Leiter's Legal Philosophy Blog
- Brian Leiter's Nietzsche Blog
- Cambridge University Press NA Blog
- Capital Defense Weekly
- Chris Uggen's Weblog
- CLR FORUM
- Commercial Law
- Concurring Opinions
- Conglomerate
- Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Books
- CrimProf Blog
- Dorf on Law
- Election Law
- Empirical Legal Studies
- Feminist Law Professors
- First Amendment Law Prof
- Gender & Sexuality Law Blog
- Harvard University Press Blog
- How Appealing
- Ideoblog
- Info/Law
- Institutional Review Blog
- IntLawGrrls
- Law Librarian Blog
- Law School Innovation
- Law, Economics & Cycling
- Legal History Blog
- Legal Scholarship Blog
- Legal Theory Blog
- Madisonian
- Mirror of Justice
- MoneyLaw
- Nancy Rapoport's Blogspot
- NYU Press Blog
- Opinio Juris
- OUP Blog
- PrawfsBlawg
- Professor Bainbridge
- PropertyProf
- Ratio Juris
- ReligiousLeftLaw
- Reproductive Rights Prof
- scatterplot
- SCOTUSblog
- Sentencing Law and Policy
- Sports Law Blog
- TaxProf
- The Becker-Posner Blog
- The Right Coast
- The Situationist
- The Volokh Conspiracy
- Truth on the Market
- Turtle Talk
- University of California Press Blog
- University of Chicago Press Blog
- Voir Dire
- White Collar Crime Prof Blog
- Word on the Streeterville
- Workplace Prof
- WSJ Law Blog
- Yale Press Log
« Faculty Hiring: UC Davis | Main | Institutionalism and 11-393 »
June 28, 2012
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54f871a9c8833017742cd2049970d
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NFIB v. Sebelius:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Recent Comments
- Shubha Ghosh on Richard Coulson (1942-2013)
- Bill Turnier on Looking For Uncle Leo: The Film
- Brando Simeo Starkey on Looking For Uncle Leo: The Film
- Bob Strassfeld on Looking For Uncle Leo: The Film
- BH on Reconsidering the Conventional Wisdom on the Legal Job Market - Part III
- John Thompson on Reconsidering the Conventional Wisdom on the Legal Job Market - Part III
- BH on Reconsidering the Conventional Wisdom on the Legal Job Market - Part III
- MacK on Reconsidering the Conventional Wisdom on the Legal Job Market - Part III
- BH on Reconsidering the Conventional Wisdom on the Legal Job Market - Part III
- Alfred Brophy on Female Institute Trivia
Bloggers
Bloggers Emereti
Guests, Current and Past
- Adam Benforado
- Bernie Burk
- Beth Thornburg
- Brando Starkey
- Brian Sawers
- C. Scott Pryor
- Cassandra Burke Robertson
- Daniel Sokol
- David Orentlicher
- David S. Cohen
- David Yellen
- Derek W. Black
- Donald Tibbs
- Ediberto Román
- Elizabeth M. Glazer
- Eric Chaffee
- Eric Chiappinelli
- Franita Tolson
- Gary Rosin
- Greg McNeal
- Gregg D. Polsky
- Jeff Lipshaw
- Jessie Hill
- Jessie Owley
- John Inazu
- John Kang
- Kathy Stanchi
- Kelly Anders
- Marc Roark
- Mark C. Weidemaier
- Matt Lister
- Michael Higdon
- Michael Lewyn
- Michelle Meyer
- Miriam Cherry
- Nancy Rapoport
- Nareissa Smith
- Paul McGreal
- Ralph Clifford
- Richard Gershon
- Robert Heverly
- Robert Spitzer
- Roger Dennis
- Sarah Lawsky
- Scott Taylor
- Sharona Hoffman
- Sheila B. Scheuerman
- Tamara Piety
- Tommy Crocker
- Tuan Samahon
- Taja-Nia Y. Henderson
- Michael J. Madison
- Ediberto Roman
- Beth Haas
- Patrick S. O'Donnell
- Phil Pucillo
- Bill Reynolds
- Rita Trivedi
Archives
- May 12, 2013 - May 18, 2013
- May 5, 2013 - May 11, 2013
- April 28, 2013 - May 4, 2013
- April 21, 2013 - April 27, 2013
- April 14, 2013 - April 20, 2013
- April 7, 2013 - April 13, 2013
- March 31, 2013 - April 6, 2013
- March 24, 2013 - March 30, 2013
- March 17, 2013 - March 23, 2013
- March 10, 2013 - March 16, 2013
Not me. I thought it would be 6-3 to uphold, with Roberts writing the majority opinion. I think one could have made a lot of money betting on this outcome.
Posted by: Alfred Brophy | June 28, 2012 at 12:01 PM
Larry Tribe predicted that Roberts would vote to uphold the law.
Posted by: AGR | June 28, 2012 at 01:14 PM