An interesting point raised by SCOTUS blog
The Supreme Court spent 91 minutes Wednesday operating on the assumption that it would strike down the key feature of the new health care law, but may have convinced itself in the end not to do that because of just how hard it would be to decide what to do after that. A common reaction, across the bench, was that the Justices themselves did not want the onerous task of going through the remainder of the entire 2,700 pages of the law and deciding what to keep and what to throw out, and most seemed to think that should be left to Congress. They could not come together, however, on just what task they would send across the street for the lawmakers to perform. The net effect may well have shored up support for the individual insurance mandate itself.
If so, it would look to be that the Court would not be arguing the Constitutionality of the mandate, but whether it would be hard work afterwards if it did. Which would completely miss the point of having a Supreme Court, the members of which take an oath to uphold the Constitution.
Interestingly, the typically unhinged Shakesville (which previously blocked me from commenting because I ask uncomfortable questions, but, hey, privately owned) raises an interesting point
What will Kennedy do? Once again, I am thrilled that one person has such a ridiculous amount of power in an ostensible democracy.
Me too. If only all the justices would consider American constitutionality when making a decision. But, then, the liberals on the Court would no longer be liberals. Of course, we aren’t a democracy. Republic. Book. Pick up now and then.
