- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Posted May 8, 2013
This book concerns itself with the challenge to Obama's Affordab
This book concerns itself with the challenge to Obama's Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) in the lower Federal Courts, and, primarily, in the Supreme Court.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
The information is often from a legal perspective which I, not being a lawyer, had a little trouble with. It is not, however, so dense as to be only written for people specializing in Constitutional Law.
I was expecting a history of the whole range of opposition to Obamacare--right wing media, the Tea Party, Republican politicians, etc. What I got was just the legal arguments against the mandate for every citizent o purchase healthcare, and other aspects of the law as well. This turned out to be useful information and an interesting story all in and of itself. Just why did Justice Roberts go against all of his political instincts to uphold the law in general, and the mandate in particular? How could he agree with the main argument against the mandate, and yet still find it contitutional? Even Supreme Court specialists were confused and astounded by the ruling in this case, and a book shedding light on the case and its outcome is welcome.
Though the author shows proper respect for opponent's arguments against Obamacare in the lower courts and the Supreme Court, the following statement near the end of Chapter Four is revealing of Koppelman's attitude towards the legal challenge to Obamacare:
"Isn't it odd that the mandate, which a few years earlier was the Republican alternative to Clinton's health plan, suddenly became, once Obama supported it, an intolerable intrusion on a new, unenumerated liberty? May we not suspect that, if Obama had rejected the mandate and chosen a different mechanism, those wonderfully creative Republicans would have invented a different constitutional rule, which that mechanism would have violated?"