Re: “Scholars on health care act: Legal, but . . .” (TNT, 6-23).
The article touting the opinions of legal scholars towards the constitutionality of President Obama’s national health care act lacked objectivity and credibility.
First of all, there is no evidence provided that the opinions of the 21 scholars cited in the story objectively represent legal scholarship about the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Once that fact is considered, the statements about not only the constitutionality of the law but also the political impacts of the court’s decision are suspect.
I was most troubled by the way that legal precedents were simply implied in the article. It seems rather condescending to me that the writer expects readers to blindly accept legal precedents that he doesn’t even identify. Isn’t the acceptance or rejection of actual cases as relevant precedents the crux of the whole argument?
If the News Tribune’s intention is to publish for readers who are dense enough to accept what is essentially an opinion piece without actual evidence and argument, it has succeeded.