Site Meter

Initial impressions of the states’ brief in Fl. v. HHS

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. TJ says:

    “New York v. U.S. does not require the federal government to offer alternatives to conditional spending programs”

    Well, of course. If NY v. US were directly on point in requiring the Federal government to provide an alternative (besides, of course, the alternative of turning down the money), then the present case wouldn’t be in the Supreme Court. That hardly demonstrates the states’ argument is absurd as you make it seem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image