Law & Obligation: Final Comment

by Ramesh Ponnuru

In the conclusion to his latest post, Matthew Franck writes that the more he looks at Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion, the more defensible he finds it. Except that he has abandoned the defense of Roberts’s attempt to justify his conclusion by using a “functional” analysis of the provision that most of us always called the “individual mandate.” Since Franck has conceded that this analysis, as applied here, is radically defective, I am happy to declare victory and move on.

Bench Memos

NRO’s home for judicial news and analysis.