In case you aren't bored by more Raich commentary . . .

Mike Dorf has a nice findlaw column on Raich here.  Like my half-assed effort at commentary here, he focuses on one of the interesting aspects of the case and the result: that jurisprudential philosophy came into conflict with policy preferences for many justices.  His focus was to justify Scalia's and Kennedy's votes with the majority; they seemed to betray their federalism commitments in service of their prudishness about drugs.  But he offers a plausible way to read all the members of the Court (well maybe not Kennedy, whose silence in Raich has generated much criticism and speculation) as acting consistent with their jurisprudential philosophy--and leaving their policy preferences at the threshold of One First.  That's almost inspiring, no?

By the way, this unnecessary post only confirms what Solove wrote earlier today: my movers are packing up my dishes as I write and I still can't resist the blog.  I'm almost hoping there is no internet coverage along I-80. 

But Dan Markel and I will be blogging from the AALS new teacher's conference later in June.  Stay tuned.