The judge has to look at the arguments being presented, not bring in some extra argument that may or may not be relevant.
Roberts justified Obamacare because "in his opinion" the penalty for not having health insurance wasn't a "penalty", it was a "tax" which was legal.
Nobody made that argument. Roberts pulled it straight out of his ass in order to justify the law. That's a bunch of bullshit is what it is. But we can't do the same thing in reverse. ACB and the other two judges were asked a specific question: Is the Illinois GOP's claim that they should be allowed to gather like a church valid?
A district court, a 3 panel 7th circuit court, and Kavanaugh all said No.
Because to do so would've been judicial activism.
The judge has to look at the arguments being presented, not bring in some extra argument that may or may not be relevant.
Roberts justified Obamacare because "in his opinion" the penalty for not having health insurance wasn't a "penalty", it was a "tax" which was legal.
Nobody made that argument. Roberts pulled it straight out of his ass in order to justify the law. That's a bunch of bullshit is what it is. But we can't do the same thing in reverse. ACB and the other two judges were asked a specific question: Is the Illinois GOP's claim that they should be allowed to gather like a church valid?
A district court, a 3 panel 7th circuit court, and Kavanaugh all said No.