Despite Egypt's assurances the US said that the raids on NGOs did not positively reflect the Egyptian government's commitment to democracy. The raids resulted from concerns by the Egyptian government over how the pro-democracy NGOs were funded. Egypt's military proclaimed that it would not tolerate foreign interference [Reuters report] in the nation's affairs. The US hinted that the raids may induce increased scrutiny over the $1.3 billion in military aid that the US sends to Egypt annually. Egyptian crackdowns against protesters have drawn significant criticism recently. On Thursday, Egyptian prosecutors and police raided the offices of 17 pro-democracy groups. Two weeks ago, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights [official website] Navi Pillay [official profile] condemned [JURIST report] a brutal suppression of protesters that led to 11 deaths and over 500 injuries.

I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted. They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process. I know that they each give careful consideration to any recusal questions that arise in the course of their judicial duties. We are all deeply committed to the common interest in preserving the Court's vital role as an impartial tribunal governed by the rule of law.

In November, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments [JURIST report] on the constitutionality of the PPACA. The court granted certiorari [order list, PDF] in three separate cases, reserving five-and-half-hours for oral argument on the issue. The court agreed to hear two hours of arguments on the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate issue in Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida [docket]. The court will consider Issue 1, which asks, "whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision." The court consolidated the cases of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [docket] and Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services [docket] and will hear 90 minutes of oral argument on the question of whether the individual mandate provision can be severed from the remainder of the act. All three cases that the court agreed to hear arose out of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which ruled in August that the individual mandate is unconstitutional but severable [JURIST report], upholding the rest of the law.

Both houses of Congress reached an agreement [JURIST report] on the language of the NDAA's most controversial sections in mid-December. Earlier in December, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) [official website] unanimously approved [JURIST report] a provision in the NDAA that gives the military complete control and custody over terror suspects. Shortly before the SASC's decision, the ACLU issued a report [pdf] claiming that the US is diminishing its "core values" [JURIST report] with regard to various counterterrorism measures put in place during the 10 years since the 9/11 attacks [JURIST backgrounder]. To support this contention, the report cites to US policies regarding indefinite military detention for terrorism suspects, the use of torture on terrorism suspects and enemy combatants, racial and religious profiling and domestic surveillance and wiretapping.