Opinion here (PDF). The vote was 2-1. I discuss the dissent on the flip.

First, the court ruled that the individual mandate regulates economic activity:

The minimum coverage provision regulates activity that is decidedly economic. In Raich, the Supreme Court explained that “‘[e]conomics’ refers to ‘the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.’” Id. at 25 (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 720 (1966)). Consumption of health care falls squarely within Raich’s definition of economics, and virtually every individual in this country consumes these services. Individuals must finance the cost of health care by purchasing an insurance policy or by self-insuring, cognizant of the backstop of free services required by law. By requiring individuals to maintain a certain level of coverage, the minimum coverage provision regulates the financing of health care services, and specifically the practice of self-insuring for the cost of care. The activity of foregoing health insurance and attempting to cover the cost of health care needs by self-insuring is no less economic than the activity of purchasing an insurance plan. Thus, the financing of health care services, and specifically the practice of self-insuring, is economic activity.

More on the flip.

Atrios found this nifty embed:

[Sorry everyone, but the video plays automatically and until I can figure out how to change the embed code, it has to be deleted -- TL. Update: The link is here.]

Calls for increased taxes on oil companies and jet plane owners. Not a bad political gambit, but in the end, he has to show resolve in the negotiation. In answer to a question on GOP cooperation, President says "Call me naive." Ok, you're naive.

Yglesias:

I believe all critiques of Obama that aren’t critiques of his macroeconomic management are slighting the role that poor macroeconomic management has played in exacerbating everything else. It’s certainly true that his team has faced an unprecedented level of non-cooperation from Republicans. But at the same time, Obama hasn’t shown much in the way of so-called “Rooseveltian resolve” to keep trying things and appears to have quite sincerely pivoted toward deficit control and structural reform last winter even with unemployment stuck at sharply elevated levels.

Is is too late to alter course? I fear it is. Listening to Tim Geithner has clearly been the President's biggest mistake and it is what imperils his reelection.

Speaking for me only

PIMCO & Co. get $8.5B. Homeowners probably get harassed:

In addition, the deal will require Bank of America to improve its payment collection process by hiring specialists to focus on high-risk loans, and do a better job of tracking whether the bank is adhering to its own internal loan-servicing standards.

As long as Wall Street's happy, no problem? Consider Sheila Bair's comment in the article:

“Unresolved legal claims could serve as a drag on the recovery of the housing market,” Ms. Bair said. “The healing of the housing market is essential to the recovery of the broader economy.”

I respectfully disagree. Unresolved legal claims like the ones BofA settled are not the major drag on the economy that the homeowner crisis is causing - it is the depressed housing market and balance sheet problems homeowners face. That is what is depressing aggregate demand. PIMCO & Co. getting these billions will have no discernible impact on the economy or aggregate demand.

Speaking for me only

The United States Trustee for California has filed a Motion For Leave To Appeal the ruling by the US Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California which declared DOMA unconstitutional. The filing, in the case In re Balas and Morales (11-bk-17831-TD Doc 53), states that:

Although Attorney General and the President have concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same sex couples is subject to heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional under that standard, the President has instructed that Executive Departments and agencies continue to comply with Section 3 unless and until it is repealed by Congress or there is a definitive ruling by the Judicial Branch that Section 3 is unconstitutional.

A strange submission. the Justice Department believes that DOMA is unconstitutional, but is appealing a ruling that DOMA is unconstitutional. The filing indicates that the opportunity to brief this issue was provided to the Congress, which declined to participate, and there is no indication that Congress wants to participate in an appeal. So who exactly is seeking reversal here?

While it is true that Justice has a duty, to a point, to defend duly enacted laws, there are limits to this duty. And indeed, the United States Trustee in this case does not seem to have much inclination to provide a meritorious defense in this appeal. Not a decision I fully understand (indeed, it defies my prediction of no appeal in this case.)

Speaking for me only

It's the finals on The Voice. I hope Beverly wins.

Nightline follows the DEA on a marijuana smuggling investigation. More Reefer Madness:The agents say "marijuana smuggling has contributed to 35,000 deaths along the border in the past five years."

On Frontline on PBS, The Child Cases, a investigative report on the faulty science behind shaken baby syndrome. Even one of the prosecution experts in the Nanny case of Louise Woodward has switched sides. Dr. Patrick Barnes:

Do you think the child in that case was shaken to death?

No, the child had an impact injury. You can't get a skull fracture from shaking. You can't get a wrist fracture from shaking. The child had a traumatic impact injury. Shaking was irrelevant in that case in retrospect.

[More...]

Lura Lynn Ryan, wife of imprisoned former Ill. Governor George Ryan has passed away. While the courts repeatedly refused to allow him to visit her, the Bureau of Prisons showed more compassion and allowed him to visit four times, including last night when she passed away.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

There was no holdout for "not guilty" in the retrial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. It's always interesting to get a glimpse of what goes on in the jury deliberation room, and the jurors in Blago's trial are talking.

Instead of secret votes, they used the "fist to five" method:

Secret ballots don’t show where people truly are, Wilson said, so the jurors resorted to what they called the “fist to five” method. If a juror’s fist was closed, Blagojevich was not guilty. If the juror showed five fingers, he was guilty.

“And then you have everything in between,” Wilson explained. “That led us to see openly people’s opinions of where they were in the process.”

The jurors didn't think Blagojevich was credible. They thought he was playing to them. Some of them found him personable, but thought the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming. The downside for Blago taking the stand is that if the Judge thinks he lied during his testimony, he will bump up his sentencing guidelines by two levels. Blago is free on bond until sentencing.

There's a white collar $60 million stock fraud trial going on in state court in New York. Bloomberg has the details.

The Government is relying in part on the testimony of John D. Mazzuto, the former CEO of a Pittsburgh-based company called IEAM, who pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against others to save his own skin, to get a conviction against James Margulies, the company's former chief counsel.

New York criminal defense attorney Ira London, who is representing Margulies, got his shot at Mazzuto during cross-examination last week. Henry Blodgett of Business Insider says Ira "eviscerated" him and shows how with portions of the transcript.

For the lawyers out there, note Ira's great use of trilogies (three questions (sometimes more) for each point, or one question asked three different ways. Often, each question will add one additional fact.) Great work, Ira.(Disclosure: Ira is a long-time friend.) The trial is expected to last two more weeks. [More..]

The Dodgers filed for bankruptcy.

Blago Guilty.

Gators start the College World Series finals tonight. Go Gators!

Open Thread.

Thought I'd try the phrase on for size before she gaffes too badly. Anyway, I am a firm believer in pumping up Bachmann because we want her to win the GOP nomination. Romney's the guy who can beat Obama. Maybe Pawlenty I suppose. But Bachmann can not. As a result, I will now make fun of Kevin Drum stand-in Andy Kroll who points to Nate Silver for the proposition of "throwing cold water" on Bachmann's big weekend. The problem is Silver is actually quite bullish on Bachmann:

I haven’t said anything about the performance of Michele Bachmann in the poll, who drew 22 percent, just a point behind Mr. Romney. Really, there isn’t much to say other than this: these are terrific numbers. [. . .] I would consider her the favorite to win the Iowa caucuses and a legitimate contender to win the Republican nomination.

Throwing cold water? I think Nate is revving up "the impressive Michelle Bachmann" line. (Note: Nate doesn't know much more than me or you about these things, but people think he does.)

Speaking for me only

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo did a great thing when he maneuvered the New York State legislature into approving gay marriage. Part of why he did it, in my view, was a question of political positioning. Aside from the accomplishment, what was Cuomo looking for? In my view, stories like this one by Nate Silver:

[T]he type of leadership that Mr. Cuomo exercised — setting a lofty goal, refusing to take no for an answer and using every tool at his disposal to achieve it — is reminiscent of the stories sometimes told about with President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had perhaps the most impressive record of legislative accomplishment of any recent president. It’s also a brand of leadership that many Democrats I speak with feel is lacking in President Obama.

There is, in my view, a fatigue building among Democrats regarding President Obama's political style, his vaunted Post Partisan Unity Schtick (really just a variant on the old Clinton/DLC Third Way Schtick.) Obviously that is not meaningful to 2012 in terms of who the nominee will be - the President will not be challenged. But it is meaningful for 2016. Thus, when Silver writes: