From the "Credit where it's due" file.

If it's due. Goldy suggests that Rob McKenna might be due the benefit of the doubt...

Even though an overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars had weighed in that the mandate appeared to be constitutional, perhaps it is unfair to use this ruling to impugn McKenna’s legal acumen. Perhaps McKenna merely made the political calculation that the conservative majority on the court would ultimately prove be just as politically unprincipled as he is, and thus toss out the ACA regardless of clearly established precedent?

Politically unprincipled or legally inept?

Why choose one?