Click here to receive the Daily Digest via e-mail.

Roberts' Switch (Robert Reich)

Reich writes that the Chief Justice's decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act seems motivated by a desire to keep the Court from looking too partisan. Obviously, its true concern is serving the interests the people (many of whom happen to be corporations).

The Real Winners (NYT)

Paul Krugman notes that while President Obama is entitled to a victory lap after yesterday's ruling, everyone who isn't rich enough to never have to worry about health care should be celebrating the rejection of the GOP's "first, do some harm" approach.

Why the Obamacare Decision is Very Good News for Women (Forbes)

NND Editor Bryce Covert highlights how the Affordable Care Act, from Medicaid expansion to the ban on gender rating, will make women healthier and wealthier. But it's probably still not a good idea for Obama to end his remarks about the law with "...ladies."

Ruling Could Allow Republicans to Deny Medicaid to Millions of Poor Americans (The Nation)

George Zornick notes that by limiting federal penalties on states for not accepting additional Medicaid funds, the Court's ruling could allow conservative governors to punish the poor out of spite and ideology. But when has that ever been their motivation?

Supreme Court puts new limit on Commerce Clause. But will it matter? (WaPo)

One of the most potentially significant parts of yesterday's ruling is its narrow reading of Congress's Commerce Clause powers, but as Brad Plumer points out, it might not make much difference unless politicians really are in the pocket of Big Broccoli.

Why Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress (Salon)

Alex Pareene writes that while Republicans have spent months trying to turn the ATF's failed "Fast and Furious" program into a capital-S scandal, yesterday's vote was the equivalent of a congressional resolution that they hate Eric Holder's stupid face.

Corporate Profits Fall for First Time Since Recession (NYT)

Catherine Rampell reports that corporate profits ticked down 0.3 percent last quarter, marking their first decline since the end of 2008. Now maybe they'll start to understand how the rest of us feel, except for how we're not sitting on trillions of dollars.

Three More Governance Questions for the Fed (NYT)

Simon Johnson writes that his petition to make Jamie Dimon resign from the New York Federal Reserve has raised other questions, most of which boil down to "How do you guys decide which parts of the Federal Reserve Act you get to ignore?"

Who Wants Big Banks? (Baseline Scenario)

James Kwak notes that investors have decided that oversized bank stocks may not be a safe place to park their money, but the banks' execs don't fear what the minnows think as long as they're swimming in the school of finance's biggest fish.

6 Ways the Big Banks Are Getting Back-Door Bailouts and Making Big Money From Taxpayers (AlterNet)

Sarah Jaffe points out that while we might have turned off the fire hose of money we were spraying the banks with in 2008, exploiting the vulnerable has still allowed them to connive their way into drinking straight from the tap.

With additional research by Danielle Bella Ellison.