Ira Stoll on SCOTUS ObamaCare Ruling: emphatic rejection of former constitutional law professor's constitutional acumen

At, where they still believe capitalism has a future, contributor Ira Stoll finds four bright spots in the Supreme Court's ruling in National Federation of Business et al v. Sebelius:

New media beats old media. CNN's initial report, that the law was struck down, was incorrect... 

By calling the mandate a tax, the court made an official ruling that President Obama had violated his 2008 campaign promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year...

[I]n the end it may well be better for the country for these decisions to be made through the political process rather than by a group of nine robed graduates of Ivy League law schools in a non-televised proceeding...

Finally, though the ruling was in some sense a vindication for Obama on the constitutionality of the law, in other ways it was a pretty emphatic rejection of the constitutional acumen of a president who is, after all, a former professor of constitutional law. Even Elana Kagan, President Obama's own appointee to the court and his former solicitor general, and Justice Breyer, a former aide to Senator Edward Kennedy, agreed that the Medicaid expansion part of the law was unconstitutional.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pip from the forge||

    The wrong picture can kill a thread.
    Lobster Girl would have saved it.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.