There's no denying that a Supreme Court ruling against the law is a very real possibility. — The WaPo's Greg Sargent
Well, I've thought that you have been overly pessimistic on this (even though the advantage of having this overturned is that the Republicans will have shot themselves in the feet and there might be a chance for single-payer -- which we already know is constitutional) but what does Sargent think you mean? Did he get an orangutan to write for his recently?
I like him actually, and I don't expect him to have followed the links. I'm sure he's too busy to bother.
I admit I'm pessimistic. But what I find even more unbelievable are statements like this, from a Georgetown University professor of law, calling the Necessary & Proper Clause "[t]hat catch-all provision." His own criticism of Judge Hudson's decision at the same time affirms it in whole, by acknowledging there are no limits whatsoever to Congress's legislative power.
Post a Comment