Links, 4-4-12

The discussion in the Supreme Court last week prompted outrage among many liberal commentators:

Steven Pearlstein writes that the questions about requiring citizens to eat broccoli or buy cell phones misunderstand the issue because the power to tax, regulate, or mandate anything (e.g. airbags) always runs the risk of taxing, regulating, or mandating "stupidly".

Paul Begala writes that "your health care is now in the hands of the right-wing majority of the Supreme Court" and writes that

The oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act give us very little reason to have faith in the wisdom of the court. Some of the justices came off as smug, arrogant, and frighteningly detached from the realities of everyday life in America

And Supreme Court expert Jeffrey Toobin writes that the characterization of the health care mandate as "unprecedented" by Anthony Kennedy and others is a "misperception" on all levels and that Congress has had sole authority to determine how to implement the Commerce Clause the last 75 years.

For example, the Justices had no trouble upholding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which used the clause to mandate the integration of hotels and restaurants. “It may be argued that Congress could have pursued other methods to eliminate the obstructions it found in interstate commerce caused by racial discrimination,” Justice Tom C. Clark wrote, for his unanimous brethren. “But this is a matter of policy that rests entirely with the Congress, not with the courts. How obstructions in commerce may be removed—what means are to be employed—is within the sound and exclusive discretion of the Congress.” In other words, Justice Kennedy had it backward. The “heavy burden” is not on the defenders of the law but on its challengers. Acts of Congress, like the health-care law, are presumed to be constitutional, and it is—or should be—a grave and unusual step for unelected, unaccountable, life-tenured judges to overrule the work of the democratically elected branches of government.

Politico wonders what's next for health care if the mandate is struck down, with some worrying that it might pave the way for the repeal of environmental and labor laws.

The Economist wonders whether there are still Conservatives who oppose the health care law but who believe it's constitutional or if everybody has conflated good/bad with constitutional/unconstitutional.

Nate Silver explores whether the current Supreme Court is the most conservative in modern history


President Obama went after the GOP budget designed by Paul Ryan, calling it a "radical vision"

60 Minutes reported Sunday on new research finding that sugar is toxic and can lead to heart disease and cancer independent of its effects on weight gain.

Many of you wrote about early childhood education in your ed policy papers.  Here's a brief from University of Chicago's Nobel Prize winning James Heckman on the importance of investment in young children.

A new report argues that while more Americans obtaining college degrees, the numbers haven't increased fast enough to keep up with the demands of the private sector.  The US now ranks 16th in the world in percentage of adults with a college degree.

With a Romney nomination (Romination?) looking more and more likely, the Washington Post says to let the veepstakes begin and explores ten of the most likely nominees

Utah's Republican Attorney General is pushing for a slightly less confrontational crackdown on illegal immigration, including allowing guest worker visas.