Another judge has upheld Obamacare's individual mandate. For those keeping score, that makes three Democratic-appointed judges in favor, two Republican-appointed ones against. Philip Klein at The American Spectator zeroes in the scary part of the ruling that makes clear "how broadly one has to interpret congressional powers to find the mandate constitutional":
As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress's power...However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.
Get that? Even your "mental acticity" is subject to government regulation. If you're one of the ones who say that "at least the government can't get into my mind," just forget all that.
Comments
The SCOTUS rarely reverses itself, and especially not on rulings that have been around for years. It affects too many rulings by lower courts. What they do is stepwise refinement.
The Supremes ruled in 1944 that insurance was an interstate business, and that the federal gummint could use the Sherman anti-trust act to break up the South-Eastern Underwriters Association.
That doesn't mean that SCOTUS can't find Obamacase unconstitutional on other grounds, but I don't think they'll reverse a 1944 decision in order to assert that Congress doesn't have the power to regulate health insurance.