Soon the Supreme Court will be facing the question of whether the federal health care individual mandate is constitutional, but Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick thinks the legal questions are laughable and not even worth considering. Of course it’s constitutional, dummyheads, she writes.
Why? Well, first of all, because until recently, the Obama administration “expended almost no energy defending it.” Now, there’s a convincing argument.
And then there’s Lithwick’s second argument, the argument from Pelosi authority, “Back when the bill passed Nancy Pelosi famously reacted to questions about its constitutionality with the words, ‘Are you serious?’” Touché, Dahlia!
And her third argument is that “the fact that the Obama administration rushed the case to the Supreme Court in an election year is all the evidence you need to understand that they remain confident in their prospects.”
And that’s all Lithwick seems to need to declare it Q.E.D. that the law is constitutional and that no reasonable man (or woman) could ever find otherwise. The rest of her article is devoted to wondering whether those backwards and completely-politically-motivated conservative Justices will find it unconstitutional anyway.
And lest you think Lithwick is just a legal know-nothing, she’s got a law degree from Stanford. So she can’t use ignorance of the law as an excuse.
[ADDENDUM: I just read Ed Whelan's piece in National Review, which is in agreement with what I've said here but goes into it at greater length.]