Legal experts pan Vinson Affordable Care Act decision

[ProSense]

Legal experts pan Vinson Affordable Care Act decision

by Joan McCarter

The lawyers have given their reviews for the Florida decision striking down the Affordable Care Act, and they're brutal. At Talk Left, BTD wonders when "essential" doesn't not mean "necessary and proper":

<...>

At Balkinization, Jack Balkin sees an activist judge at work.

<...>

Andrew Cohen at the Atlantic finds a connection in Judge Vinson's hobby--he's president of the board of directors of the American Camellia Society--and his ideology, since the camellia produces tea leaves. "And what's a Tea Party, after all, without a healthy supply of tea leaves?"

<...>

Scott Lemieux, echoing Jon Cohn highlights what could be the fatal flaw in the opinion.

<...>

But the most damning critique comes from Orrin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy. Kerr argues that Vinson's reliance on first principles rather than precedent is a problem:

Now let’s return to Judge Vinson’s analysis of the Necessary & Proper Clause. The words of the relevant Supreme Court cases point to an extremely broad power, and Judge Vinson is supposed to be bound by those words. But Judge Vinson concludes that these words can’t be taken at face value because “to uphold (the mandate) via application of the Necessary and Proper Clause would (be to) . . . effectively remove all limits on federal power.”

....This might work as a Supreme Court opinion that can disagree with precedent. But Judge Vinson is just a District Court judge. And if you pair Justice Thomas’s dissent in Raich with Judge Vinson’s opinion today, you realize the problem: Judge Vinson is reasoning that existing law must be a particular way because he thinks it should be that way as a matter of first principles, not because the relevant Supreme Court doctrine actually points that way.... (M)y point is that Judge Vinson should not have used a first principle to trump existing Supreme Court caselaw when that principle may not be consistent with existing caselaw. Either Justice Thomas is wrong or Judge Vinson is wrong, and Judge Vinson was not making a persuasive legal argument when he followed the first principle instead of the cases. Because Judge Vinson is bound by Supreme Court precedent, I would think he should have applied the cases.

The Supreme Court might be likely to think Vinson should have been bound by Supreme Court precedent, as well.

And Kerr is a Republican who clerked for Justice Kennedy.

[rury]

1. Amen!

I think a higher court will reverse Vinson's asshat ruling when the Obama Administration appeals!!

[msanthrope]

2. Jeebus. When Orrin Kerr thinks you've gone too winger, then you really have

gone winger.....

[ProSense]

3. Well, you never know who will side with wingnuts. n/t

[treestar]

4. Wonder why this decision gets so much more attention that the

Michigan decision upholding the law.

[former9thward]

5. Because it addressed the entire law not just the mandate.

Also this case was brought by 26 state AGs instead of just one plaintiff.