Back in October 2010, Fried was interviewed by Greta van Susteren:
VAN SUSTEREN: The issue that will confront the federal judge, and the Supreme Court if it goes on, is whether or not the Commerce Clause gives the federal government the power to do this….And does the constitution in your opinion, sir, enable them?
FRIED: It certainly does. The statute which I have in front of me, I bothered to read it, says that the health insurance industry is an $854 billion dollar industry. That sounds like commerce. The Supreme Court just five years ago with Justice Scalia in the majority said that it is all right under the Commerce Clause to make it illegal for California for residents in California to grow pot for their own use, because that has affect on interstate commerce. Well, if that has affect on interstate commerce, what happens in an $854 billion national industry certainly does.
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any possibility, in your mind, or any thought that you could be wrong?
FRIED: Well, I suppose I could. But I’ll tell you what, I would be happy to come on this program and eat a hat which I bought in Australia last month made of kangaroo skin.
Sounds to me that Fried was offering to eat his kangaroo skin hat if the Supreme Court found that the ACA was beyond Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. It did. Should we send him some ketchup, or does he get off on a technicality, i.e, that the Court ruled in his side’s favor on the tax power issue?
UPDATE: Fried has not toned down his rhetoric even after being proven wildly off-base. After the decision was announced, he said that the commerce clause ruling “is a complete capitulation to the bogus logic of the broccoli argument and its proponents in the Tea Party.” So I don’t feel abashed about bring up his 2010 statement that reflects the condescending and dismissive attitude with which he has consistently approached the challengers’ arguments.
Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/volokh/mainfeed/~3/dRoUNeUYY6Y/