Health Care Question

[Nelson Lund]

Presumably, then, rioting in the streets should also be an appropriate 
response if the Court does /not/ do that? Or should one's view of the 
propriety of rioting in the streets differ depending on whether one 
agrees with the legal merits of the Court's decisions? Or on one's views 
of the merits of the legislation at issue? Or one's views of what is 
"transcendentally important"? Or on whether the decision was made by 
Republican judges?

Nelson Lund
George Mason


Sanford Levinson wrote:
>
> I confess I find it also a bit bizarre that the discussion proceeds as 
> if it is totally irrelevant that a 5-judge Republican majority  will 
> be asked to set aside, on the basis of remarkable controversial (and, 
> for many of us, entirely dubious) theories of the Constitution, the 
> most important piece of domestic legislation in almost fifty years.  I 
> think it would be a far more remarkable piece of interventionism than 
> even the Old Court in 1935-36 in terms of the invalidation of a truly 
> central (indeed, transcendentally important) piece of legislation.  
> Would there be rioting in the streets if the Court did that?  I 
> certainly hope so.
>
>  
>
> sandy
>
>  
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20100322/1834b2ef/attachment.htm>