Awaiting the Supreme Court

Monday, June 18, 2012

Jeffrey Rosen is a professor of law at The George Washington University, legal affairs editor of The New Republic, and author of The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries that Defined America. As the Supreme Court's session nears completion, Rosen looks at the decisions to be decided, including the Affordable Care Act and the Arizona immigration case.



Jeffrey Rosen

Comments [6]

Americans have been so hung up on the social wars of abortion and gay marriage that they failed to even notice the court was being remade in an uber-Conservative way on issues of Corporate power.

(Or is our nation really just stupid enough to believe Corporations are people too and deserve the same rights?)

Jun. 18 2012 10:48 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

I see this as a reasonable humanitarian gesture, as well as a politically astute move. It does not provide a path to citizenship with voting rights, but does give innocent young people brought here without any foreknowledge the right to work openly and pay taxes and live their lives without having to fear automatic deportation. I see it as a reasonable gesture.

Jun. 18 2012 10:46 AM

Re: Roberts having presented himself as wanting to achieve greater consensus on the court:

Until Roberts gets more ultra conservatives on the court, he will be very happy with gaining ground for his cause of massively changing this country, taking it ever further to the right, no matter whether it's by 5-4 or whatever WINS.

He took office with one objective: To remake the judicial stands on the Constitution and, dare I say it, dismantling the great social safety net programs of the entire 20th Century. Back to the 1800's, babeeee! Especially in granting corporations and concentrated wealth more and more power.

Jun. 18 2012 10:27 AM

"Roberts said he wanted to decide cases narrowly" what's changed?

Roberts is a LIAR. Nothing's changed including the gullibility of commentators.

Jun. 18 2012 10:22 AM
David from Fredericksburg, VA

HOW is enforcing federal law (which Obama refuses to do) a pre-emption of federal law?

Your "journalist" guest and yourself need to take a course in logic. You may disagree with the Arizona law, its goals, or local authorities enforcing federal law - but you can't call it pre-emption.

Jun. 18 2012 10:17 AM
John A.

Just have to say I'd feel much better about the legal status of the USA itself if Citizens United were modified and certainly if free-firing "Targeted" death internationally were challenged.

Jun. 18 2012 10:15 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.