Plain language of statutes often has unanticipated effects (e.g. Mass v. EPA). Funny how so many think this is new.
-
-
Replying to @jadler1969
.
@jadler1969 what's new is the stakes: they've never been higher than in ACA case1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rickhasen
@rickhasen Stakes were easily as great in MassvEPA - and court stuck to semantic meaning of text and gave no Chevron deference.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jadler1969
.
@jadler1969 I guess I mean stakes less and public salience more---something likely to weigh on CJ Roberts in Obamacare case1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rickhasen
@rickhasen I don't think Roberts is the swing in this case.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jadler1969
.
@jadler1969 then who is? Kennedy, who voted entire ACA unconstitutional in NFIB ? Roberts is liberals' best hope here.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rickhasen
@rickhasen Yup. He's less committed to textualism (see TSA case this week), and more concerned about practical effects of ruling.1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @jadler1969
.
@jadler1969 Let's talk again after oral argument---my guess is we will say neither is much of a swing in this case1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
.@jadler1969 That seems to be Larry Tribe's take too
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.