re: #55 Blue Spot Vlamingii Tang

From this page

JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.

I’m bumping, punting, this comment because it seems so significant and so flawed to me, but only a few of this intelligent audience registers a response.

Whether or not our written constitution has a specific reference to an “affirmative act”, I do not think there is any person of any political persuasion in this country that would allow anyone to die in the street because of what was not in their wallet.

The legal technocrat in Justice Kennedy would then have us believe that there is a distinction between requiring a citizen to act in their own self interest versus requiring all other to act by mandate to help, as opposed to acting involuntarily without mandate through existing taxes as we all do by long tradition.

I call bullshit from the Supreme Court./