I think this is a fascinating argument. 2700 page IS a lot, and these guys should stand firm on the position that it’s too much to reasonably comprehend, even for experienced constitutional lawyers.
" Because the interstate commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate commerce between states
and Obamacare spreads its joy between all the states
therefore the federal government has the power to impose a mandate that citizens purchase such joy because the federal government must regulate such joy and cannot do so without creating such joy as Obamacare spreads between states ..... in the case of the interstate highway system, a federal fuel tax was imposed to implement it, ALL citizens benefit from the interstate hiway system
BUT, Obamacare only benefits the INDIVIDUAL and not all citizens,
therefore;, the mandate to purchase Obamacare is the right of the federal government to impose on the individual, a requirement to purchase healthcare is the fundamental duty of the federal government in order to promote the general welfare of the public .....
we are the supreme court ,
we dont have to make sense or exercise accountability because we are appointed for life and we dont care what anyone thinks as long as we make history in a big way is all that matters to us
so be it, so it will be "
Is that what he is really saying? or is he simply pointing out that it is unrealistic for the SC to rule on the constitutionality of every aspect of the law given its complexity. I think he’s laying out the case that they should either strike down only the IM and await more cases challenging other parts, or strike it down in its entirety. Logically, the statement he made that even forming SC opinion on each and every aspect of the law connected to the IM is unrealistic leads to the conclusion that if any part is found unconstitutional, the entire law is void. I obviously hope that is the way it goes, as the intentional girth and complexity of legislation lately is sickening.