Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 9:30 AM ET, 02/ 3/2011

Vinson, line by line

By Dylan Matthews

There's a lot wrong in Judge Roger Vinson's ruling overturning health-care reform, much of which Ezra's covered in Wonkbook and on the blog. But three fellows at the Center for American Progress – Neera Tanden, who was one of reform's architects in the administration before she left last year, Ian Millhiser and Tony Carrk – found something wrong on basically every page of it. So they put up an interactive version of the ruling, with every problematic sentence highlighted and explained. Even if you're not a legal nerd, it's worth a look.

Dylan Matthews is a student at Harvard and a researcher at The Washington Post.

By Dylan Matthews  | February 3, 2011; 9:30 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The case for Wyden/Brown gets stronger
Next: How to think about rebuilding the middle class

Comments

The Vinson decision is an excellent reminder to those on both sides who are interested in pursuing goals through the legal system.

Judge shopping to find someone friendly to your cause may make things easy for a while, but if your man (or woman) isn't at least modestly competent, it could end embarassingly, or worse, alienating higher judges who might otherwise have given you a chance to win them over.

Posted by: eggnogfool | February 3, 2011 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Vinson does really come across like a serious O'Reilly believer here. An incompetent one at that. Some of the errors they highlighted might be forgivable differences in interpretation, but most of them are pretty cut and dry moron-ism.

Posted by: genericOnlineID | February 3, 2011 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I started to read this document but stopped after the first comment. I'm a Constitutional lawyer, and have filed a number of amicus briefs with the US Supreme Court. I hoped this critique would address the LAW of Judge Vinson's decision. The first comment dismisses a solid legal statement and makes a political point. I'll go somewhere else to find a constitutional critique of the ruling.

Posted by: SWSomerville | February 3, 2011 4:41 PM | Report abuse

@SWSomerville:

Yeah, the first comment didn't strike me as a particularly legitimate legal point; more philosophical/semantic than anything else. The rest was better though.

The crux of it all comes on Page 63, where Vinson declares that the Constitution cannot be reconciled with his view of the proper limited role of government, to great comedic effect.

Posted by: eggnogfool | February 3, 2011 5:02 PM | Report abuse

The first highlight is all about how constitutional decisions do not have implications broader than the case. This is retarded.

Posted by: gorak | February 8, 2011 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company