First Step for House GOP: Making It Easier to Increase the Deficit

Shocked, shocked I say...

In 2007, just weeks after Republicans lost control of the House and Senate and six years after the first passel of Bush tax cuts were signed into law, Democrats made a key change to the budget rules to prevent that episode from repeating itself.

Republicans had used the budget reconciliation process -- immune from a filibuster -- to pass the cuts and explode the deficit: two things the reconciliation process was never meant to allow. To get away with it, Republicans were forced to include a 10-year sunset in package -- planting the seeds for the tax cut fight we just saw on Capitol Hill. After Dems wrested control of Congress, they banned the reconciliation loopholes used by the GOP altogether.

But as they return to power in the House of Representatives, Republicans are taking steps to unravel those changes.

Usually it'll take a year, or at least a few months in office, for a party to give up on the platform of ideas on which it ran in the preceding election. But you have to hand it to Republicans; they managed to not only give up on deficit reduction but to actually embrace deficit creation even before their majority has been sworn in. Impressive!

How Many Post-War Presidents Have Lost Reelection Without a Primary Challenge?

It's a question worth thinking about when assessing Barack Obama's chances in 2012, because although history isn't predictive of the future, it does provide some picture as to how things tend to play out.

So what's the answer? How many times in the post-war period has a President lost reelection without facing a serious primary challenge? The answer is zero.

Taking the question from the other angle, how many times has a President in the post-war era lost a bid for another term in the face of a primary challenge? Three: Gerald Ford (challenged by Ronald Reagan), Jimmy Carter (challenged by Ted Kennedy) and George H.W. Bush (challenged by Pat Buchanan). At least one more President, Lyndon Johnson, opted not to run for another term in the face of a primary challenge (in his case, Eugene McCarthy).

One can intuit the reasoning behind this trend: A party divided leads to a party losing power. There is, of course, the question of causation, whether it is the division within the party that causes the President's weakness, or rather the President's weakness that causes a splintering of the party coalition. (Indeed, it's probably a bit of both.)

But it's still worth keeping in mind about 22 months out from election day that no President since World War II has lost a bid for another term without already having waged battle against a serious opponent from within his own party.

Obama to Base Reelect Out of Chicago?

The Chicago Tribune sees it as "likely":

The White House says President Barack Obama has not made a decision on where to locate his re-election headquarters for 2012, but observers expect the campaign to return to its 2008 base: Chicago.

Such a decision would buck recent history. Every two-term president in the last 30 years — George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan — set up re-election campaign offices near the White House or in suburban Virginia.

There are at least a couple ways of viewing this. On one hand, getting outside of the Beltway bubble is exactly what team Obama needs in the next two years; it's hard to argue that the President's political team wasn't running more efficiently before the election, when it wasn't in the middle of all the banter, than it has been since inauguration. Then again, on the other hand, having a reelection campaign based 700 miles away from the White House could be a recipe for disaster, one in which the campaign to reelect the President and the West Wing advisors aren't always on the same page.

In all, though, if Barack Obama can get the logistics right, I have a feeling that this will be viewed, on the net, as a positive.

Trimming the Filibuster, Part Deux

It looks like Senate Democrats are assessing their options for reining in the filibuster, with an openness to negotiate with Republicans on a way forward. But if the GOP remains recalcitrant, the Democrats could play hardball.

Most Democrats appear to favor a negotiated settlement in the new Congress, and it is not yet clear whether there is majority Democratic support for a rules fight on the floor. If the situation did reach that point, much would depend on decisions by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a former longtime senator who in his current office serves as president of the Senate.

Mr. Biden could have to judge whether the Constitution and Senate precedents allow Democrats to use a simple majority vote to enact a rules change on the first day of Congress rather than gather the 67 votes typically required. Senate Democrats have consulted with Mr. Biden about their plans but say they have no sense of where he might come down, though as a member of the Senate for 36 years he would no doubt think carefully about any abrupt departure from tradition.

A move by Vice President Biden to make a strong ruling as head of the Senate would be far from without precedent. In a 1975 Time article entitled "Trimming the Filibuster," wrote about previous such moves from Vice Presidents:

Dilatory Tactic. Such tactics kept the issue in doubt for days; but the liberals patiently persisted. They got a boost from Rockefeller's ruling that each new Senate draws up its own rules and that until Rule 22 was readopted, only a simple majority was required to change past practices. Rockefeller was even more helpful when he deliberately refused to recognize Allen on three successive occasions when Allen sought futilely to make "a parliamentary inquiry." Although conservative Senators angrily assailed Rockefeller for this high-handed tactic, Rocky was technically right. The Senate rules specifically permit the presiding officer to ignore a parliamentary inquiry when he believes it is being used as a dilatory tactic. Allen's whole aim was to stall; he outsmarted himself by saying precisely why he sought recognition. Nor was Rockefeller's ruling that the Senate is a noncontinuing body all that extraordinary. Vice Presidents Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon had taken the same stand in previous filibuster fights.

At this point, I'm far from convinced that the Democrats will actually fully follow through in this gambit. Then again, I have little doubt that the Republicans will do the exact same thing the next time they are in control of the White House and the Senate, so it's hard for me to see why the Democrats shouldn't simply go ahead and preempt them. But we shall see...

A Little Mel Torme

It's that time of the year...

Twitter Press Conference

Per White House new media director Macon Phillips, press secretary Robert Gibbs will be fielding questions via Twitter today at 10:00 AM. Have a question for the administration? Shoot it to @PressSec.

Schwarzenegger to the Obama Cabinet?

Sounds like Arnold Schwarzenegger would if he could:

Is Arnold Schwarzenegger angling for a job in the Obama administration?

In an interview with editors at the Los Angeles Times, the outgoing California governor said he was in "no rush" to find a new job when his term ends next month. But asked specifically whether he'd consider a post working for President Obama, he said yes and began to "riff on his credentials," according to the Times' David Lauter.

Schwarzenegger, who counts legislation combating global warming as one of his signature achievements in office, suggested he might be interested in a post dealing with energy or the environment.

I wouldn't have much of a problem with Schwarzenegger joining the Obama cabinet. True, George W. Bush couldn't find much room for Democrats on his cabinet, and President Obama already has spots for Republicans within his administration. That said, there is a significant portion of the population that self-identifies as Republican but nonetheless is open to supporting the President. Inasmuch as he is able to court their vote through symbolic measures such as cabinet appointments, in addition to policy initiatives that have resonance to the middle, I say go for it, even if it foregoes the possibility that the President could bolster the credentials of an up-and-coming Democrat by appointing them to the spot.

Obama Beats All Named Republicans in Florida

For all of the talk about how reapportionment may hamper Barack Obama's hopes at a second term as the states he won in 2008 lost a net 12 electoral votes in yesterday's reapportionment, that doesn't change the fact that the Republicans are going to have to have to change the map if they hope to retake the White House. In no state is that more true than in Florida, without which the GOP's shot at a 2012 are quite slim. And if the latest polling from PPP is to be believed, Republicans still have a ways to go.

Obama's approval rating in the state is just 45%, with 49% of voters disapproving of him. His numbers with Democrats leave something to be desired at just a 69/24 approval spread and Republicans predictably are pretty universal in their disapproval of him at 81%. But his numbers with independents are among his best anywhere in the country at 59% approving and 35% disapproving of him and that puts his overall numbers at least at a respectable level.

Florida voters may not be enamored with Obama but they don't really like the leading Republican contenders either. Sarah Palin is incredibly unpopular at a 36/57 favorability and Newt Gingrich isn't a whole lot better at 36/47. Mike Huckabee's numbers are more respectable at a 41/43 spread and only Mitt Romney has more voters with a positive than negative opinion of him at 43/38.

Romney comes closest to Obama in the hypothetical head to head match ups but still trails 46-44. You might think that with Romney having postive favorability numbers and Obama's approval under water that he would be in the lead. The problem for Romney on that front is that while 31% of Democrats like him, only 20% of them are actually willing to vote for him against Obama. On the other hand pretty much everyone who likes Obama is also committed to voting for him.

[...]

Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich each trail Obama by 5 points, a margin slightly larger than his victory in the state in 2008. It's 49-44 against Huckabee and 47-42 against Gingrich.

This all gets back to something I wrote about last week, namely that while Americans' perceptions towards the GOP have improved in recent years, they don't really like any of the Republicans actually running for President. Yes, these numbers will likely move in the next two years. But for as well as the 2010 midterms played out for the Republicans, their party is in a surprisingly weak position heading into the 2012 presidential election.

Chris Christie Isn't Much of a Star

The establishment media may love him, but apparently the people of New Jersey don't.

The polls, from Quinnipiac and Rutgers-Eagleton, show Christie's approval rating in New Jersey slipping a bit, with significant majorities skeptical that he'd make a good president or vice-president. The polling shows that Christie is one of the most polarizing governors in recent New Jersey history, with more voters holding both a very favorable view of him and an extremely negative view.

The slippage comes as his national profile continues to rise (his "60 Minutes" interview the latest in the media blitz), and as he's taken on the state Supreme Court for being excessively liberal.

The Quinnipiac survey shows Christie with a 46 percent job approval rating, with 44 percent disapproving. That's down from his 51 percent approval rating last month. He also now holds a net negative rating on education, with 45 percent approving and 49 percent disapproving of his reform efforts, taking on the teachers' unions and educational establishment in the process.

For the first time in many months, Obama's approval rating has inched ahead of Christie's. The president's approval in New Jersey is now at 50 percent, up four points from last month - and the first time he's gotten majority approval since June.

The Rutgers poll found 39 percent giving Christie positive ratings, with 54 percent rating him negatively. The 28 percent of voters who consider his job performance "poor" is the second-highest for any first-year governor in the history of the poll.

Ezra Klein says that Chris Christie has a "Pepsi problem" -- that is while voters may like him in small tastes, they don't particularly like him when they see more of his schtick.

I think that's right, but it also misses something: Policy matters, too, not just style. Christie presided over an administration that made a mistake costing his state $400 million in federal education money. He has taken further steps to reject federal dollars in a way that killed tens of thousands of jobs. Those aren't popular steps. Those are the types of steps that lead to a politician earning negative ratings.

Americans Like Obama's Priorities

CNN (.pdf) is out with a new round of polling, and the big finding is a pretty good one for the President: Americans like his policies today more than they have at any point since May 2009.

Asked by pollsters whether they "think the policies being proposed by Barack Obama will move the country in the right direction or the wrong direction?", 55 percent said the right direction while 42 percent said the wrong direction. For comparison's sake, Congressional Republicans' numbers on this question was a net 17 points worse than Obama's.

But even more importantly, CNN has periodically asked this question throughout the Obama presidency. From February 2009 to January 2010, that number had consistently fallen -- below 50 percent on the "right direction" response, in fact. But now the tide has turned and the President's numbers on this question are the best they have been in 19 months. Not a bad way to enter a new Congress, or, for that matter, a reelection bid...

Not a Way to Start a Congressional Career

The Miami Herald has the story:

The Miami-Dade state attorney's office is investigating more than $500,000 in secret payments from the owners of the Flagler Dog Track to a company tied to Congressman-elect David Rivera, The Miami Herald has learned.

Most of the money was paid in early 2008, weeks after Rivera -- then a member of the Florida House of Representatives -- helped run a political campaign backed by the dog track to win voter approval for Las Vegas-style slot machines at parimutuel venues in Miami-Dade County.

The dog track -- now called the Magic City Casino -- made three payments totaling $510,000 to Millennium Marketing, a company currently co-managed by Rivera's 70-year-old mother. Investigators are still trying to determine if Rivera himself received any of the money, or if anything about the transaction was illegal, according to sources close to the inquiry.

More than anything, this story reminds us that despite the fact that the Republicans forged a relatively large majority in the House of Representatives last month -- and perhaps also because they did -- that majority is far from invulnerable.

Two years is a long time in politics, and it's possible that this story peters out while David Rivera is able to build a better name for himself within the South Florida community. But if it doesn't, Rivera might find himself out of a job after a single term -- along with a whole host of other soon-to-be freshman Republicans who only eked out bare majorities even in this GOP-friendly cycle.

The Do Something Congress

I tweeted something to this effect last night, but I thought it was worth putting up here as well: When all is said and done, the 111th Congress will go down in history along with the 89th and the 74th Congresses as one of the most effective enactors of progressive legislation in American history.

Think about the list: Providing healthcare coverage to 31 million uninsured under the healthcare law. Reforming the way student lending is done in the country. Reforming the way credit cards function in the country. Changing the way financial institutions in the country are regulated. Ensuring equal pay for equal time worked. Reinvesting in America through the Recovery Act. And now ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Is it everything progressives wanted to have done? Far from it. But did Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid manage to get more progressive legislation to the President's desk this Congress than all of their predecessors in the past 40 years combined? Definitely.

Goodbye Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Looks like it's one for the history books:

In a landmark vote for gay rights, the Senate set the stage for passage Saturday of legislation that would overturn the military ban on openly gay troops, and President Barack Obama said it was "time to close this chapter in our history"

Repeal would mean that, for the first time in American history, gays would be openly accepted by the military and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out. More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 law known as "don't ask, don't tell."

A 63-33 test vote — 60 votes were need to advance the measure — earlier Saturday paved the way for passage, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said a final vote would come at 3 p.m. The House had passed an identical version of the bill, 250-174, earlier this week, so Senate approval would send the measure to the White House.

[...]

In the end, six GOP senators broke with their party in favor of repeal. Republicans supporting the bill were Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, George Voinovich of Ohio, and Mark Kirk of Illinois.

Ron Fournier says this will "appease[]" liberals. I'm not so sure about that. But it is about time that the Senate got on board with the vast majority of Americans who have backed repeal of the policy.

[UPDATE at 12:30 PM]: Don't ask, don't tell repeal passes by an even wider 65 to 31 margin. Per Laura Rozen, two GOP Senators who had voted against cloture -- Richard Burr of North Carolina and John Ensign of Nevada -- voted in favor of repeal.

Reid Files for Cloture on Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal

From The Washington Blade:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tonight filed cloture on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal legislation for a possible vote in the Senate on Saturday.

Regan Lachappelle, a Reid spokesperson, said the Senate no longer plans take up omnibus legislation to fund the government as originally planned and will instead proceed to “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and the DREAM Act, an immigration-related bill.

“The first vote will be on cloture on the DREAM Act on Saturday,” Lachapelle said. “If that fails we would move to the cloture vote on “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

According to Talking Points Memo, it looks like Harry Reid has the votes on DADT.

Proponents of repealing the military's ban on openly gay servicemembers have enough votes in the Senate to get it done this year. The only thing standing in the way of ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell now is time.

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) is backing the standalone Don't Ask, Don't Tell bill in the Senate, his office confirms to TPM. So is Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). The pair join Republican Sens. Susan Collins (ME) and Olympia Snowe (ME) in publicly supporting the measure, giving it more than enough votes to secure the 60 needed for cloture, the first step before a final vote that would almost assuredly come down on the side of repeal.

Vote counts, of course, can change by the time a vote is actually taken -- any Democrat counting on the support of the Maine Republicans knows that. That said, supporters of equality within the armed forces may finally be seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, which couldn't come soon enough considering that light would be shut off by the Republicans come the start of the new Congress in early January.

Don't Look Now, Palin More Unpopular than Pelosi

More numbers from the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal polling:

In addition to Obama leading her by a whopping 22 points -- compared with Romney’s seven-point deficit, and a generic GOP candidate’s three-point deficit in the poll -- Palin’s negative rating has climbed to 50%. That’s the highest negative rating for anyone measured in this poll (and it’s two points lower than Nancy Pelosi’s negative rating from last month). And get this: The only major subgroups that Palin wins in a head-to-head match-up with Obama are Republicans, conservatives, and FOX viewers. That’s it, folks. NBC/WSJ co-pollster Bill McInturff (R) says that this is “a sobering starting point” for Palin if she decides to run for president.

Of course the media will continue to cover Sarah Palin and treat her like a political super star. Of course the media will continue to dump on Nancy Pelosi and treat her like a political pariah. But when it comes to folks outside the Beltway, Palin's the more unpopular one. Go figure.

Americans Dislike Named Republicans

Well isn't this shocking? In the latest round of NBC News/Wall Street Journal polling, Barack Obama is up just three percentage points, 42 percent to 39 percent, against an unnamed GOP opponent. But give that Republican a name -- say "Mitt" or "Sarah" -- and all the sudden the President's lead balloons.

Against Romney, the lead is seven points, 47 percent to 40 percent. Against Palin, it’s 22 points, 55 percent to 33 percent. And against Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. — another potential presidential candidate, though not as well known — it’s 20 points, 47 percent to 27 percent.

This isn't too surprising. Indeed it's not unlike the results we saw in a number of races in 2010, most notably in Nevada, where Harry Reid was projected to lose to just about any Republican -- a group that apparently did not include Sharron Angle.

If only the GOP could run no one, or a cipher, against Barack Obama, they might be able to win. But if they have to put up some of the folks who appear to be running, they might be suck with another four years of a Democratic President.

So Much for Divided Government Leading to Lower Deficits...

The New York Times writes this morning that the $858 billion tax cut deal brokered by President Obama and Congressional Republicans is "the first concrete product of a new era of divided government and acid compromise."

The interesting part of this statement is that it runs completely against the grain of common wisdom, forged during the 1980s and 1990s, that the best way to ensure fiscal responsibility is to have divided government. It turns out, at least in this instance, that divided government (or here, the impending prospect of it) is freeing up both parties to spend more at will, to blow up the deficit, as it were.

Not to say that's necessarily a bad thing, of course, particularly in this economic climate. But all that common wisdom, it turns out, isn't really right. Which isn't too surprising considering that one of the biggest drivers in erasing the 1990s-era deficit were the tax increases passed not during a period of divided government but rather during a time when one party, the Democrats, controlled the White House, Senate and House. So maybe those deficit hawks should be hoping for a return to unified Democratic control after all...

Where are the Judicial Confirmations?

Huffington Post has the disappointing details:

As the first congressional session of Obama's presidency draws to a close, what began as a slow process of confirmation has ballooned into a full-blown judicial crisis. The Senate has overseen the slowest pace of judicial staffing in at least a generation, with a paltry 39.8 percent of Obama's judges having been confirmed, according to numbers compiled by Senate Democrats. Of the 103 district and circuit court nominees, only 41 have been confirmed.

By this time in George W. Bush's presidency, the Senate had confirmed 76 percent of his nominees. President Clinton was working at a rate of 89 percent at this point in his tenure.

[...]

Ronald Reagan had twice as many judges confirmed by this time in his presidency, with his 87 confirmations dwarfing Obama's total. George H.W. Bush had moved 70 judges through the Democratic-controlled Senate.

It's not clear what the end game is on this. At least from this vantage, the only explanation I can figure is that Republicans believe they will be able to do whatever they want next time they have the Presidency and the Senate -- that the Democrats won't eventually pay the GOP back for every stalled Obama judicial nominee. The only way this plays out, however, is if the Republicans change the rules of the Senate to forbid, or at least severely limit, judicial filibusters. Which all raises the question as to whether it's worth it or not for the Democrats to forgo a similar rule change at the beginning of the next Congress...

Judge Striking Health Provision Has Stake in Anti-Health Reform Firm

Gawker has the big scoop:

Henry E. Hudson, the federal judge in Virginia who just ruled health care reform unconstitutional, owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in a GOP political consulting firm that worked against health care reform.

[...]

Campaign Solutions was instrumental in the launching of Sarah Palin's PAC (though Palin has since split with the firm), and Ken Cuccinelli, the Virginia attorney general who filed the lawsuit that Hudson ruled in favor of today, paid Campaign Solutions $9,000 for services rendered in 2009 and 2010.

In the long run, this revelation isn't likely to change the outcome of the legal battle over health reform. The Supreme Court is either going to uphold the law, or it's not; poor appearances regarding one of the judges ruling on the law isn't likely to sway the Nine. That said, inasmuch as the fate of health reform remains in the public sphere -- and don't think it's not just because it's in front of the courts, too -- this type of news can't help those seeking to squash the law.

Checking Back In

Things have been a bit slow here the last week as I have begun my legal career here in Washington, DC. I will indeed be busy with work, but I should be getting back to blogging starting with a post in a few minutes.

First Day of Work

And a bit more on that to come. Blogging should be a bit slower from here on out as I start up my legal career.

Single-Payer Coming Soon?

At least to Vermont, says Dave Weigel:

Speaking to reporters today, incoming Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber said he was hopeful about the incoming GOP-run House of Representatives in one way. If they "put their money where their mouth is," and give more flexibility to the states, they'll make his job easier.

The context: the Affordable Care Act included language, put there by Kitzhaber's senator, Ron Wyden, which allows states to get waivers and duck the federal mandate to buy health insurance. I followed up and asked specifically if the incoming governors were looking for waivers, and they were. Both Kitzhaber and incoming Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin said they had met today with Donald Berwick and were looking for waivers that would allow them to pursue their own progressive health insurance reforms. Shumlin said that he ran on a promise to bring single-payer health care to Vermont; that's what he was seeking.

While the cause of states' rights has generally been championed by the right, at least in this instance the federalism clause of the health reform legislation may actually serve to advance progressive policy rather than conservatism -- quite the interesting advance.

Hanukkah Jazz on Hanukkah Eve

Over the years, there have been countless Christmas jazz albums, some of which have been pretty good (here's a list of favorites from AllAboutJazz.com; I personally enjoy "A Charlie Brown Christmas" from the Vince Guaraldi Trio and Ray Brown's "Christmas Songs" album).

But if you're anything like me, you're also interested in an enjoyable Hanukkah jazz album -- particularly tonight, which marks the beginning of the Jewish festival. If so, you're in luck: a few years ago a cantor in the Los Angeles area named Kenny Ellis released an enjoyable album entitled "Hanukkah Swings."

In the album, Ellis manages to capture to holiday spirit while maintaining a genuine big band swing. His "Swingin' Dreidel," a fanciful take on the classic "I Have a Little Dreidel," aspires to a sound put forth by the Basie band in the mid-1950s; his "Sevivon, Sov, Sov, Sov" harkens to the Benny Goodman, Gene Krupa and "Sing, Sing, Sing." In "Rock Of Ages," Ellis somehow manages to seamlessly meld the traditional hymn with Benny Golson's "Killer Joe" -- and does it well. "Twas the Night Before Hanukkah" is enjoyable as well, if only to get an authentically Yiddishe take on a Christmas staple.

So if you're looking for something to play at your Hanukkah party tonight, go ahead and give this one a listen.

Just 40 Percent Want Tax Cuts Extended for Wealthy

Which explains why it appears tax cuts will be extended for many wealthy Americans?

As Congress considers what to do about the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of this year, Americans are sending a clear signal that they want them extended in some shape or form. Forty percent want Congress to maintain the tax cuts for everyone, while 44% support setting limits on how much of wealthy Americans' income is eligible for the lower rates.

According to the poll, 57 percent back ending tax cuts for the wealthy. One could imagine a world in which such a sizable majority would compel action in Congress -- but apparently that world isn't the one we inhabit.

Conservatives Lose Another Legal Challenge to Health Reform Law

So much for the courts overturning health care reform...

For the second time in two months, a federal judge has upheld the constitutionality of the new health care law, ruling on Tuesday that the requirement that most Americans obtain medical coverage falls within Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce.

The judge, Norman K. Moon of Federal District Court, who sits in Lynchburg, Va., issued a 54-page ruling that granted the government’s request to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Liberty University, the private Christian college founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Last month, in a separate case, Judge George C. Steeh of Federal District Court in Detroit also upheld the law.

For those interested, the full opinion is available here (.pdf). It appears to largely track an earlier ruling from a federal judge in Michigan, who similarly held the law was constitutional, with both judges holding that the decision to forego health care insurance does not constitute economic inactivity but rather economic activity -- precisely the type of action the federal government is permitted to regulate.

Neither of these judges will likely have the final word on the subject. But at least for now, the courts that have spoken to the constitutionality of the healthcare reform law are in agreement that the law is permissible.