Why The Supreme Court Will Overturn ObamaCare

A fantasy mansion, and a locked room.

I know, right? Now tell your friends!
Why The Supreme Court Will Overturn ObamaCare
Ben Smith

A conservative lawyer explained the logic for overturning ObamaCare as lucidly as I’ve heard, and on the condition of anonymity.

“The court is going to find a spurious exception to a spurious doctrine,” he said. Then he offered a version of the rationale the Supreme Court majority will, he predicts, use to overturn not just the mandate, but the entire bill:

You have built an imaginary mansion, with thousands of rooms, on the foundation of Wickard v. Filburn — the 1942 ruling that broadened the understanding of how the Commerce Clause could be used to regulate economic activity.

We aren’t being asked to radically revise the Commerce Clause and throw out seven decades of law, and we won’t. But we know the founders never intended the Commerce Clause to allow the Federal Government to regulate everything on the planet. So we are going to accept Randy Barnett’s basically spurious exception to that basically spurious idea, and throw out the Affordable Care Act on the grounds that the Commerce Clause regulates “activity” (which we don’t really believe), but not “inactivity” (because, why not draw the line somewhere?).

This is to say: You have built a fantasy mansion on the Commerce Clause. You can hardly blame us if, in one wing of this mansion, down a dusty corridor, we build a fantasy room called “inactivity,” lock the door, and don’t let you in.

Check out more articles on BuzzFeed.com!

More ▾

Facebook Conversations

          

    5 Responses So Far

    • artemisstrong thinks Why The Supreme Court Will Overturn O... is Fail  about 10 months ago
    • newu829 a year ago

      yall crazy this will not get overturned

    • Ninja Scientist thinks Why The Supreme Court Will Overturn O... is Fail  about a year ago
    • scottm22 thinks Why The Supreme Court Will Overturn O... is Win  about a year ago
    • gcs3 a year ago

      Canada is awesome. We pay less per capita in taxes for great health care and all of us have it.  I find it weird that Americans want to pay more for less, so long as they are paying the glorious private sector. but AAAHH SOCIALISM. How about “more bang for your buck”?

    • tracyd7   Why The Supreme Court Will Overturn O...  about a year ago
    • jak15 thinks Why The Supreme Court Will Overturn O... is Ew  about a year ago
    • kevinm44 a year ago

      “Necessary and proper” has never been used by the Court in the way Luno proposes; a dictum referring to that clause has been widely interpreted by others, but the Court has never signed onto that interpretation. And Christopherc27, I think when the source says “spurious,” he has already included “arbitrary.” In legal matters, anything arbitrary is by definition spurious.

    • washingtonpost.com readers just made Why The Supreme Court Will Overturn O... hotter  about a year ago
    • Why The Supreme Court Will Overturn O... is starting to get hot on Facebook Share It  about a year ago
    • memeorandum.com readers just made Why The Supreme Court Will Overturn O... hotter  about a year ago
    • mandabear82 thinks Why The Supreme Court Will Overturn O... is Fail & WTF  about a year ago
    • jamesr17 thinks Why The Supreme Court Will Overturn O... is Win  about a year ago
    • dalb thinks Why The Supreme Court Will Overturn O... is Win  about a year ago
    • GaryNOVA thinks Why The Supreme Court Will Overturn O... is Fail  about a year ago
    • Why The Supreme Court Will Overturn O... is starting to get hot on Twitter Tweet It  about a year ago
    • christopherc27 a year ago

      This wins the prize for dumbest analogy of the internet. Imaginary mansions? How does that help illustrate anything about this case? SCOTUS reaffirmed Wickard v. Filburn in 2005 in Gonzales v. Raich, with Scalia concurring. So much for dusty corridors.  All this “explains” is that SCOTUS may create an arbitrary limit on the commerce power, without support in the text of the constitution or in precedent. No imaginary mansions or other spurious analogies are necessary.

    • luno a year ago

      This is incoherent.  The whole argument hinges on “we know the founders never intended the Commerce Clause to allow the Federal Government to regulate everything on the planet”, a spurious analysis at best. It’s obvious, don’t you see! The clause doesn’t count because regulating one of the biggest chunks of economy falls under “regulating everything”. Either way just look to the necessary and proper clause if you don’t buy the commerce clause argument.

    • jocelynoliver thinks Why The Supreme Court Will Overturn O... is Fail  about a year ago
    Now Buzzing