Some commentary on the Vinson decision

I don't have anything at the moment, but here are three good commentaries on the decision by Judge Vinson yesterday, striking down Obamacare in totality.

Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post:

Liberal pundits who have consulted liberal law professors about liberals' great achievement -- ObamaCare -- are pronouncing the ruling by Judge Roger Vinson to be much to do about nothing....It is, we are told, "curious," "odd," or "unconventional."

These are complaints, not legal arguments. And they suggest that the left was totally unprepared for the constitutional attack on their beloved handiwork.

Aaron Worthing at Patterico.com:

I will say that compared to the pervious Virginia case striking down Obamacare, this decision exhibits far better writing. Judge Hudson in Virginia seemed to constantly say, “well, the plaintiffs say this and the defendants reply with that” and never made it clear what, if any, of their reasoning he agreed with. By comparison Judge Vinson has written an opinion that sets out exactly what he thinks of the law and does so with some eloquence. While I do not appreciate what appears to have been pot-shots at Justice Kagan and President Obama, I think overall this is a far more sound and persuasive opinion.

Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy:

As I have often noted in the past, this decision is just another step in an ongoing legal battle. Ultimately, the issue of the individual mandate will be resolved by the courts of appeals and probably by the Supreme Court. Still, Judge Vinson’s ruling is a victory for opponents of the mandate. It’s also extremely well-written, and thereby provides a potential road map for appellate judges who might be inclined to rule the same way.

If you're interested at all, click on the links...