Cato’s Michael Cannon nicely summarizes what I think likely are the sentiments of most freedom-loving people regarding the D.C. Circuit’s decision to grant en banc review of the Halbig decision on Obamacare…. which presents an opportunity to link…
… to this EconLog post from not long ago by David Henderson. I suggest my own related thought experiment to the one David offers in that post. Imagine one word – a single, a mere, a tiny, lone two-letter word – excluded from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so that it reads:
Congress shall make law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
If Linda Greenhouse is correct, arguing over the exclusion of such a minuscule part of a grander document would be petty and annoying and oh-so-bothersome to those who wish to rule unencumbered by legal niceties such as the actual texts of legislative and other legal and government documents.