Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-wr4x4 Total loading time: 0.247 Render date: 2023-01-31T03:35:14.283Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

NFIB vs Sebelius: the political expediency of the Roberts court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2013

Michael K. Gusmano*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Health Policy and Management, New York Medical College, NY, USA
*
*Correspondence to: Dr Michael K. Gusmano, New York Medical College and The Hastings Center, 515 Munger Hall, Valhalla, NY 10524, USA. Email: Michael_Gusmano@nymc.edu

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Special Section
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Casillas, C. J., Enns, P. K.Wohlfarth, P. C. (2011), ‘How public opinion constrains the U.S. Supreme Court’, American Journal of Political Science, 55(1): 7488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohn, J. (2012), ‘Is the Court's legitimacy really at stake?’, The New Republic, April 2, http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/102254/supreme-court-obamacare-legitimacy-mandate-bush-gore# [29 October 2012].Google Scholar
Durr, R. H., Martin, A. D.Wolbrecht, C. (2000), ‘Ideological divergence and public support for the supreme court’, American Journal of Political Science, 44(4): 768776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klarman, M. J. (2004), ‘Brown at 50’, University of Virginia Law School Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series, Paper 5.Google Scholar
Klein, E. (2012), ‘Unpopular Mandate: Why do politicians reverse their positions?’, The New Yorker, June 25, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/25/120625fa_fact_klein [25 October 2012].Google Scholar
Liptak, A.Kopicki, A. (2012), ‘Approval rating for justices hits just 44% in new poll’, New York Times, June 8: A1.Google Scholar
Metzger, G. E., Morrison, T. W., Pincus, A. J. 2012. ‘Brief of Constitutional Law Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners’, In the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 11–398.Google Scholar
Nicholson, S. P.Howard, R. M. (2003), ‘Framing support for the supreme court in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore’, The Journal of Politics, 65(3): 676695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tau, B. (2012), ‘Toobin: Health Law ‘Looks Like it's Going to be Struck Down’ ’, Politico, March 27, http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/toobin-health-law-looks-like-its-going-to-be-struck-118811.html [28 October 2012).Google Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

NFIB vs Sebelius: the political expediency of the Roberts court
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

NFIB vs Sebelius: the political expediency of the Roberts court
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

NFIB vs Sebelius: the political expediency of the Roberts court
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *