3 Supreme Court Decisions to Watch

The Supreme Court is back in session with major decisions coming on the legality of Obamacare, Arizona's anti-immigration law, and the right of property owners to due process.

How's the court expected rule in these cases and what are the likely implications of its decisions?

Reason Senior Editor Damon Root sat down with Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie to talk about the 3 decisions to watch in the Supreme Court's current session.

Shot by Joshua Swain and Meredith Bragg; edited by Jim Epstein.

Approximately 4.30.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • o3||

    ginsberg looked frail at the SOTU. wonder why no mandatory retirement age?

  • poetry||

    the first person to live to 150 has already been born

  • o3||

    yea probably is some isha isha stan

  • ||

    legality of Obamacare,

    Gut reaction: Massively split court, opinions all over the place, but Medicaid mandate upheld, narrow ruling striking the mandate with a wink-wink that it would be fine as a tax provision, not Commerce Clause regulation.

    Arizona's anti-immigration law,

    Struck down. States don't retain more than a fig leaf of sovereignty these days.

    and the right of property owners to due process.

    After much gassing about property owners and due process, whatever outrage was committed against the former without the latter will be upheld.

  • ||

    I think the healthcare law does lose the mandate, but with the wink-wink on the tax concept. Basically, they'll tell Congress and the president that they'll accept a do-over, but they won't save the law by rewriting it.

  • "Furious" Styles||

  • poetry||

    are you related to ryan?

  • ||

    Is every poster over there as much of a dipshit prick as PZ Meyers? Apparently so.

  • Tonio||

    OK, Free Thought Blogs is a PZ Myers joint. He founded that when his blog traffic kept overloading the server which hosted Scienceblogs. Although there is no formal, stated litmus test (intended) I can find, pretty much every blog on FTB is one of Myer's sycophants.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    Fucking shit. On Jan 18, SCOTUS finally decided the case Golan v Holder, and they upheld the idea that even after something has entered the public domain, it can be snatched back. Bullshit.

  • ||

    It is pretty unfortunate that a grammatical error slipped past spell check and two respected journalists' focuses. Good video, though.

  • rather||

    My vote:

    #1 Arizona law upheld because their law does not conflict with federal

    #2 Due process upheld in that you cannot be forced to naturalized your property into a wetland; a limited decision

    #3 Healthcare is the puzzle; I expect a very unusual decision but not a split

  • fyngyrz||

    This would probably have made a great article. Alas, just another unwatchable video.

    Come on, Reason --- put it in text form so we can quote it, discuss it, read it at our own pace, so it can contain hyperlinks, etc.

    Video without complete and accurate transcripts is for Saturday morning cartoons. When you use video that way, you cripple your reporting. Intelligent journalism should be done in print. Video is a least common denominator mechanism. Is that what Reason wants to be known for?

  • DK||

    I agree. I refuse to watch this. Print, please.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement