The July print edition of Reason magazine includes “Wonky Justice,” by , that summarizes the “dubious policy assumptions behind ’s legal defense.” Here’s a quick summary:
ObamaCare’s legal defense relies as much on policy arguments—about the nature of uncompensated medical care, the role of, and the interaction of the law’s various provisions—as it does on constitutional reasoning. But the policy case is just as dubious as the constitutional one.
Suderman concludes, based on the Administration’s statements, that the Supreme Court, if it strikes down any part of ObamaCare, should strike down the whole thing.
Read the whole article.