• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Tab For The Ted Stevens Misconduct Report: $981,842 | Main | Crowell Agribusiness Lobbyist Moves to Bergeson & Campbell »

March 27, 2012


Sidney Gendin

Perhaps the learned Justices ought to have explained why being forced to buy health insurance is more onerous than being forced to buy auto insurance.

Wayne Isaacks

Buying broccoli ( and eating it ) and doing regular exercise has a hope of relieving the health erosion of our population, and so it is a more useful individual mandate. Of course, once you allow the federal government to regulate citizen behavior to the level of detail of the Affordable Care Act, particularly with mandatory injunctions, rather than a prohibition...well, there is no difference, so mandate the behavior that works to promote health, thereby reducing the healthcare costs born by all. Hmmm. Grandma government..


I'm disappointed.
It sounds like both wings of the Court are parroting what they've read in USA Today and other similar legal authorities.

How come none of the Justices (except maybe Thomas) had any doubts about any kind of mandate until the last few years? (Don't answer that. I know that almost nobody had any such doubts until the last few years.)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad