Jeffrey Toobin thinks politics matter more than the substance of yesterday's ruling:

Personally, I found Hudson’s opinion unpersuasive. His invocations of Comstock were particularly misleading, in my view. But I found Hudson’s use of Comstock illustrative of a larger point. Judges, to a great extent, can do what they want. They can manipulate precedents to reach the conclusions they want to reach. In high-profile cases, the decisions are more about politics than law. If Hudson can cite Comstock for precisely the opposite of what that decision was clearly intended to do, all bets are off. The fate of health-care reform will rest not with the skill of the lawyers who will argue itor in the words of the cases on which they will relybut on the preferences of the nine Justices who will decide the case.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.