This is exactly the kind of flawed logic that comes about when your task is to arrive at a predetermined end and the challenge becomes developing a path from point A to point B. This is exactly what I have condemned in the past as judicial activism. There was cleverness, there was nuance. He did manage to reign in the Commerce Clause by specifically stating that was not the legal basis. In fact he said that would have been unconstitutional. But then declared that if we call it a tax, it IS constitutional. The only problem there is that the actual language in the law says it's not a tax and is in fact compelling individuals into the market. See, I have a problem when in order to arrive at the "right" result, we have to redefine words so that they mean something other than what you thought they meant. That makes it very difficult when you try and apply that precedent to future cases.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment