Who are you to judge?

It's always a good rule of thumb to think through the implications of your arguments. I recently saw an argument against the individual mandate in the health care bill that essentially boiled down to a refusal to accept judicial precedents if the speaker deems that they don't follow from the Constitution. So while the arguments for the constitutionality of the individual mandate (i.e., 1) the general taxation power of Congress, 2) the commerce clause, and 3) the necessary and proper clause) can be argued based on precedents combined with other precedents, someone might obstinately declare that it doesn't matter. Those precedents are the work of activist courts, don't have a basis in the Constitution, and should be ignored or overturned. As such, the argument goes, the Supreme Court should overturn the individual mandate, and perhaps more of the health reform law, as well.

Airtight, until you remember that judicial review itself is a precedent and doesn't actually appear in the Constitution.