Details at Hot Air.
The opinion is less than impressive in its analysis, which I can summarize as follows: both sides have good arguments, and this is a hard case, so tie goes to the plaintiff.
The position[s] of the parties are widely divergent and at times novel. The guiding precedent is informative, but inconclusive. Never before has the Commerce Clause and associated Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far. At this juncture, the court is not persuaded that the Secretary has demonstrated a failure to state a cause of action with respect to the Commerce Clause element. This portion of the complaint advances a plausible claim with an arguable legal basis.
That’s not my understanding of how a 12(b)(6) motion is supposed to be decided. The plaintiff gets the benefit of the doubt on factual issues, but not on legal ones. Sounds like the judge didn’t want to make the final decision, so he issued a wimpy decision that buys time until the issue resurfaces. Unimpressive.
My view is that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. But then, I thought Wickard v. Filburn was a totalitarian decision. Just because I think it’s unconstitutional doesn’t mean it will be ruled unconstitutional. I suspect this battle will have to be fought and won in the political arena, and not in the legal one.