Law

Early this morning, the Hill reported that the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is relying on a private company — a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group — to play a central role in establishing and running Obamacare’s insurance “exchanges.”

The $831,000,000,000 economic “stimulus” that President Obama spearheaded and signed into law requires his administration to release quarterly reports on its effects.  But “the most transparent administration in the history of our country” is now four reports behind schedule and has so far not released any reports whatsoever in 2012.  Its most recent quarterly report is for the quarter than ended on June 30, 2011.

If you want to get some sense of where the economy is heading, don’t ignore what the courts are doing. No need to repeat much of what you have heard—some of it may be true—about the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare.

Obamacare survives on June 28, 2012. It falls on November 6, 2012.

Attorney General Eric Holder avoided commenting on the Fast and Furious scandal in Boston today. The Boston Herald reports:

Last year, the mega-law firm Dewey & LeBouef generated revenue totaling $782 million. It was the 20th largest firm according to the National Law Journal. Its clients included the Los Angeles Dodgers, the NFL Players Association, and eBay. But over the last five months, 206 of its partners defected. It currently owes approximately $315 million to creditors. There is a criminal investigation involving a pension plan allegedly underfunded by $80 million. Last week, the legacy firm, which dates back to 1909 (and whose "Dewey" refers to the Thomas Dewey), filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

The New York Times gushingly describes how President Obama’s unique background — he’s “a man from many worlds,” “a transcender of tribes,” and, yes, “a former constitutional law professor” — has allowed him to unearth a creative “middle way” on the question of redefining marriage.  That “middle way,” according to the Times’s account, is to come o

Steve Hayes, with Brit Hume, Juan Williams, and Charles Krauthammer, last night on Fox News:

Last week, a federal judge in Washington issued a truly extraordinary opinion. Judge Janice Rogers Brown, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, went out of her way to challenge one of bedrock achievements of the 20th Century liberal legal establishment: the de-emphasis of economic rights, relative to other "fundamental rights," as a matter of constitutional law. Judge Brown's opinion already has sparked controversy, and it deserves closer scrutiny.

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

Yesterday, President Obama said, “We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre-New Deal.”

Last week, President Obama clumsily announced that it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to strike down "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." This week, his words are already having an effect in the courts—but not the effect he hoped for.