Remarking on U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson's decision declaring Obamacare unconstitutional, Aaron Worthing offers a minor criticism:

There were a few lines that struck me as rhetorical “shots” (if you excuse my metaphorically violent language) at different targets, which I don’t approve of as a lawyer (although part of me smiles anyway).

I don't have an issue with the so-called rhetorical shots, perhaps it's a lawyer thing. But note Worthing's comment here:

There are several passages that also strike me as persuasive. For instance, most of the time discussion of the historical meaning of the Commerce Clause is not very useful because we have passed those limits ages ago. But this line gives any reasonable reader pause at the threshold the Democrats have breezed past:

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

I agree with Worthing, but he overlooks the huge rhertorical shot. Don Surber didn't miss it:

Oh and that is the ultimate slap in the puss with a tea bag.