Another clear cut example of the difference between ‘legal’ and ‘moral’. This decision is well written, well cited, and concise. It is legally correct.
It is, however, a moral abomination. It is a prime example of what is wrong in the US judiciary. There is a valid Constitutional question in play, here. And, to this point, NO one has standing? Bull Puckey!
It is decisions like this that will drive this nation to its next revolution.
I thought conservatives abhorred judicial activism?
That’s an interesting concept. Libtards believe that it is immoral not to provide health insurance to those who can’t afford it. Would we want judges deciding in favor of the libtards based on their definition of morality?