The crux of Judge O’Connor’s decision centered on the health law’s requirement that most people have health coverage [the individual mandate] or pay a tax penalty.
That tax penalty was effectively eliminated when Congress reduced its amount to zero in the tax legislation enacted last year. And once the tax penalty no longer stood, the so-called “individual mandate” was unconstitutional and the entire law had to fall, the judge reasoned in accepting the argument of the 20 states that brought the lawsuit challenging the legislation.
That tax penalty was effectively eliminated when Congress reduced its amount to zero in the tax legislation enacted last year. And once the tax penalty no longer stood, the so-called “individual mandate” was unconstitutional and the entire law had to fall, the judge reasoned in accepting the argument of the 20 states that brought the lawsuit challenging the legislation.
O'Connor "reasoned" that? That is completely unsound reasoning. It is non-reasoning, it is nonsensical.
But an array of legal experts said that argument was unsound. Jonathan H. Adler, a conservative law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, called that position “simply nonsensical” and said the judge’s conclusion was “hard to justify” and “surprisingly weak.”
Like I said.
...If the Fifth Circuit upholds Judge O’Connor’s decision [on appeal], the Supreme Court is likely to agree to hear the case in its term that starts in October 2019, with a decision in 2020. If the Fifth Circuit overturns the judge’s ruling and upholds the law, there is a good chance the Supreme Court would decline to even take the case, legal scholars said.
Because O'Connor's "reasoning" is so absurd. The Supreme Court would not waste its time.
Judge Reed O'Connor's opinion is an EMBARRASSMENT to the federal bench, to the bar, to a reasoning humanity.
