Sunday, March 18, 2012

Barnes on the Affordable Care Act in the Supreme Court

Washington Post reporter Robert Barnes offers (here) a trenchant assessment of prospects for the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") before the Supreme Court, which refreshingly focuses on the inevitably political, rather than legal, basis of the Court's decision.

The simple fact of the matter is that the ambiguous language of the constitution does not provide a clear answer to the question of whether Congress can require individuals to purchase health insurance. The Court's interpretation(s) of constitutional language will be neither objectively right nor objectively wrong but inevitably will be hotly and legitimately disputed.  

1 comment:

  1. Seems to me if the boneheads in congress would have called the penalty a tax (or better, just call it a tax to which people who carry insurance get an exemption), rather than a fine "levied as a tax," we wouldn't have this argument.


I actively moderate comments for spam, advertisements, and abusive or offensive language.