The most prominent legal story this week has nothing to do with criminal law. The Supreme Court spent three days hearing oral argument on the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care reform law. Two things unrelated to the merits of the case intrigue me. First, lots of pundits think that at least a portion of the law will be struck down (the part requiring individuals to purchase health insurance if they’re not otherwise covered), and the Atlantic argues here that a legal blog has been hugely influential in shaping the public debate about, and the legal fate of, the law. Not this blog, obviously, but still: I am drunk with power! Second, I hugely enjoyed the beginning of this New York Times story: “The three days of Supreme Court arguments . . . on the . . . health care law will be a legal marathon, and the lawyers involved have been training. Last week, there were so many . . . moot courts that they threatened to exhaust something that had never been thought in short supply: Washington lawyers.” In other news: In between all those oral arguments, the Supreme Court actually decided a criminal case this week. Setser v. United States will be of interest to folks who are concerned with the interplay between state and federal sentences. Will technology solve the drunk driving problem? Politico reports here that Congress is considering directing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to study the feasibility of “nonintrusive technology based around touch [...]
Faculty Coordinators
