By “specious, bad-faith ... arguments” I assume the former economist means insisting it isn’t a tax then, cheering when it’s saved for being a tax, and “if you like your doctor...” no? Someone tell me I haven’t read.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that if a legal argument has absurd implications, it’s an absurd argument.
2/ he will, one way or another, take away your health insurance."
The New Plot Against Obamacare Will specious, bad-faith legal arguments prevail?
There used to be more conservative judges who were deeply committed to honest rule of law - defending their interpretations with reason, principle, and precedent. The New Plot Against Obamacare