Recently the Illinois Law Review published a response to Professor Hyman's article, "Why did Law Professors Misunderestimate the Lawsuits Against PPACA?" The response by Professor Ramseyer argues "that the statements made by law professors about the constitutionality of the PPACA often reflected partisan loyalty more than thoughtful legal analysis." He continues:
Not only was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA; Obamacare) constitutional, they declared, but to suggest otherwise was foolish—at best. As David Hyman meticulously details, they declared the issue “obvious,” “open and shut.” Any claim to the contrary had “no legal merit.” It was “silly,” a “non-starter,” “if not frivolous, close to it," "completely bogus," and "beneath contempt." Anyone who questioned the Act's constitutionality was "simply crazy," a "wing nut," "deeply ignorant," "grandstanding in a preposterous way," a "proponent of slavery and segregation"—or maybe even a bit akin to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Our constitutional law colleagues (with very few exceptions) described the PPACA as a valid exercise of the Commerce Power, and in this they were wrong. The statue straightforwardly violated the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court explained. It could stand only in modified form and only as an exercise of the government's taxing power—the taxing power of a President who had adamantly assured voters that the statute was not a tax. . . .
Our colleagues obviously let their wish lists get ahead of their brains.