APPEASING THE UNAPPEASABLE. I don't really agree with the take of my colleagues Garance and Ezra on Maureen Dowd's abjectlyhorrible column yesterday. The error they're making, I think, it to assume that these charges have some sort of objective merit to someone, or that there's some way of avoiding having junior high narratives being developed about you.
NO CHANCE. I'm frankly baffled by Ilya Somin's claim that there are plausibly five votes to strike down the PBA Act on Commerce Clause grounds. The most obvious problem with his argument is that it entirely ignores the Raich decision, under which the Commerce Clause issue presented by the Act is plainly insubstantial.
THE "STATES' RIGHTS" SCAM. As a follow-up to Garance below, it's worth noting that in a sane universe yesterday would put an end to the already-silly idea that most Republicans have a strong commitment to state autonomy, or that Republican opposition to the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence is about preserving state power rather than about a substantive opposition to abortion.
FOUR THINGS TO REMEMBER WHEN READING GONZALES V. CRAHART. As an antidote to the inevitable chorus of fake moderates arguing that yesterday's abortion case is no big deal, four things to keep in mind as you ponder today's decision: