My friend Mark Barrett, a lawyer with an apparently amazing capacity to read and absorb legal decisions, writes with this interesting quote from Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion (page 29):
A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.
Update: Speaking before his remarks at the symposium on Socially Responsible Investing we sponsored this evening with the Catholic Finance Association, William Mumma, the head of the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty , brought up Justice Ginsburg’s comment and said that he thought this meant that the legal challenges to the individual mandate would succeed. I wasn’t taking notes and he didn’t say much about it, but that was the gist.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Ethics of Rhetoric in Times of War
What we say matters. And the way we say it matters. This is especially true in times…
How the State Failed Noelia Castillo
On March 26, Noelia Castillo, a twenty-five-year-old Spanish woman, was killed by her doctors at her own…
The Mind’s Profane and Sacred Loves
The teachers you have make all the difference in your life. That they happened to come into…
