Gerard Magliocca links to a post he wrote in January 2010, analyzing Balkin’s early predictions about ACA:
Jack Balkin has a post outlining his view that the individual health care mandate is constitutional. He closes with this:
“I assume that as soon as the health reform bill is passed, people will challenge the individual mandate in court. I doubt these challenges will succeed. But stranger things have happened in constitutional law, and I’ve seen some of them in the past twenty-five years I have been teaching in this area. I will, however, say this: The Supreme Court would have to significantly alter its post-New Deal doctrines to strike this tax down. It could not just apply the law as it currently exists; it would have to change the law markedly. At present, I do not think the votes are there for such a constitutional revolution.”
The problem is that Balkin provides no explanation about why or when “stranger things happen” in constitutional law. This sort of improbable event — a black swan — is treated as random. That is simply wrong.