I forgot to follow up with this on the day appointed, but here it is anyway–a few days late, but none the worse for wear in the meantime. Here is the beginning of Joerg Knipprath’s third missive on HCR and its constitutionality:
Having addressed the substantive constitutional arguments over Obama/Reid/PelosiCare, I want to consider some institutional factors that might influence the outcome of the challenge by the state attorneys-general or by anyone else who hopes to derail this “road to serfdom” through litigation. It is difficult to predict how the courts will react to these suits. There is a general aversion on the part of courts to intervene in matters of complex social policy. The courts are institutionally and politically ill-equipped to second-guess the political branches on responses to this type of question. They do not have the requisite ability to gather and evaluate evidence and to decide the best way to balance competing societal interests. Such issues are also generally seen as involving matters of public policy, not constitutional law. Involvement by the courts in such policy disputes is likely to trigger a hostile political reaction against the judiciary as constituting a serious breach of the separation of powers.
Please go read it all.