Cass R. Sunstein in Bloomberg View on the conservative Constitution Scalia and Thomas seem to have abandoned conservative interpretation of the Constitution. Like with affirmative action: "None of the conservative justices asked a single question about whether affirmative-action programs are consistent with the original meaning of any provision of the Constitution," Sunstein writes. "They are giving a moral reading to the 14th Amendment."
Steven M. Davidoff in The New York Times on Dodd-Frank Repealing Dodd-Frank wouldn't end "too big to fail" and may make things worse. Banks got too big to fail because they made money, not because of regulation. Financial reform tries to make them smaller. The alternative would be to break the banks down, which is politically unlikely, or to impose higher capital requirements, which may work but is basically the same as Dodd-Frank.
Jeffrey A. Meyer in The New York Times on privacy and drug-sniffing dogs Two Supreme Court cases on whether drug-sniffing police dogs violate privacy rights could shape privacy rights. One case asks if police can take a dog to the front porch of a home to sniff for weed. If they can, "it is hard to see why the police could not station drug-sniffing dogs outside the entrances to every school, supermarket and movie theater as a routine form of drug interdiction."