ObamaCare has been found constitutional by a federal judge. Hot Air has the money quote from the decision:
While plaintiffs describe the Commerce Clause power as reaching economic activity, the government’s characterization of the Commerce Clause reaching economic decisions is more accurate.
Allahpundit gives you the dire analysis:
[I]f we’re all necessarily “active” in health-care commerce at all times, theoretically there’s no limit to what sort of further activity can be mandated in the interest of spreading costs. Can the overweight man or woman be forced to diet because he/she is more likely to need medical services? Presumably that would be dealt with via higher insurance premiums, but we all know only too well already that federal pressure on insurers to keep premiums down will create all sorts of inefficiencies, which is where we get into ye olde rationing problem. Simple question: What’s the limiting principle on this decision? Would the feds be barred from penalizing people for failing to maintain, say, a certain BMI target because of the right of privacy or bodily autonomy, etc? Or would they not be barred at all? Where does this end?
Answer: it doesn’t. This was decided in principle decades ago in Wickard v. Filburn. When you lose a presidential election, you get presidents who appoint horrible judges. Horrible judges issue horrible decisions — and the precedents live on long after the judges are dead.
Tell me again how voting for “pure” candidates is so important that it would be acceptable to lose ten elections in a row? You want centuries of decisions like this, keep up that brilliant strategy.
You’ll destroy the Constitution in the process. But at least you’ll keep that frisson of self-righteousness. And in the end, isn’t that what really matters?