No but it would be nice if they are basing there decision on an economic principle for them to at least have some basic understanding of that principle.

 

-----signature-----

if their questions were so far off base then it should have been an easy matter to counter/answer them

 

-----signature-----

the car comparison paled in comparison to the food comparison. I'm not surprised Assmale wants to focus on the car comparison.

 

-----signature-----

Pointing out that these justices don't understand the economics at play here != the solicitor general understands the economics at play here. It's pretty obvious to most observers that Verilli looked pretty clueless at times the past few days.





The food comparison is even dumber than the car comparison, but for completely different reasons.

[ ] broccoli

[ ] health care


1. People are 100% likely to require one of these at some point in their lives

2. People who cannot afford one of these can get it for free (to them, by law)

3. When people get it free, the cost is shouldered by those who paid for insurance against the eventual and inevitable cost associated with its consumption.


I'll point out for you which one of these is the correct answer in a subsequent post if you can't figure it out for yourself.

 

-----signature-----

Unconstitutional is unconstitutional even if it makes good fiscal sense.

 

-----signature-----

This is true.

I am genuinely curious what would happen in a scenario where the mandate is ruled unconstitutional but the rest of the law is allowed to stand. I have my thoughts but honestly there are a variety of possible outcomes.

 

-----signature-----

agreed....he seems completely inept at providing a good argument for the govt...his stumbling and bumbling was an embarassment....and its one of the few times when i'm glad stupid politicians appoint retarded(read: inept) people to high positions

 

-----signature-----