David Savage's article "Health care law gets friendly hearing in appeals court" (May 11) was predictably friendly to the court and Obamacare.

He asserted that "the issue is whether Congress has the power to regulate the national health insurance market by requiring all those who can afford insurance to pay for coverage." But for the rest of the article he carefully ignored just that issue.

Instead, he described comments by the judges that were "friendly" to Obamacare but neglected to point out the obvious logical fallacy in those comments.

For example, Judge James Wynn Jr. said Congress saw the issue as a matter of personal responsibility: "Citizens use healthcare. Someone has to pay for it."

I suspect the plaintiff would have answered, "your point is well taken your Honor, but it's irrelevant. The issue is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to force private parties to enter contracts for services or products. We contend it does not."

Yet not a single word in the article addressed what the plaintiff might have or did say in response to the "Obamacare-friendly" utterances by the judges.

Angelo Mirabella, Silver Spring