Round two: A ‘good day for those challenging the individual mandate’

Paul Conner Executive Editor
Font Size:

Tuesday, one of the most consequential days for the health care law, was a “good day for those challenging the individual mandate,” Ilya Shapiro reported from the Supreme Court.

Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, is covering the oral arguments for The Daily Caller. (RELATED: Full coverage of the health care law’s trip to the Supreme Court)

“While trying to predict Supreme Court decisions is a fool’s game, the wise should take note that if this morning’s argument is any indication, Obamacare is in constitutional trouble,” Shapiro wrote in an email on Tuesday.

“From Justice Kennedy’s noting that the government is fundamentally transforming the relationship of the individual to the government, to Chief Justice Roberts’s concern that ‘all bets are off’ if Congress can enact economic mandates, to Justice Alito’s invocation of a hypothetical burial-insurance mandate, to Justice Scalia’s focusing on the “proper” prong of the Necessary and Proper Clause — and grimacing throughout the solicitor general’s argument — it was a good day for those challenging the individual mandate,” Shapiro continued.

Tuesday was a tale of three lawyers, with former Solicitor General Paul Clement and attorney Michael Carvin arguing against the law, and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr. arguing for the Obama administration.

“Paul Clement and Mike Carvin did a masterful job on that score, showing again and again the unprecedented and limitless nature of the government’s assertion of federal power,” Shapiro said. “The solicitor general meanwhile, had a shaky opening and never could quite articulate the limiting principle to the government’s theory that at least four justices (and presumably the silent Justice Thomas) were seeking.”

Follow The Daily Caller’s continuing coverage of Obamacare here.

Follow Paul on Twitter