I wouldn’t worry about this case being the one that “saves” Obamacare for the government.
The farmer’s argument is actually kind of mathematically nonsensical when you think about it.
The case for the government is its authority to set a quota.
If you then say, to be fair, you should have a quota PLUS what the farmer uses, well, you now just have a slightly higher quota.
So the farmer’s argument is kind of ridiculous.
The “quota program” as I understand it is/was voluntary.
The farmer AGREES to a quota for his farm in exchange for a price support guaranteed by the government for his crop.
After agreeing to the quota, he produced more and said it was for his own consumption.
That’s where the case comes in. Is the quota an absolute limit on his production or can he produce the quota PLUS what he “thinks” his consumption will be, for his own use?
GIVEN the quota program, to begin with, it would have been unenforceable without the decision.
>>...The farmer’s argument is actually kind of mathematically nonsensical...<<
Perhaps my understanding is incorrect, but I thought the lynchpin of the govt’s argument in Filburn was that, by Filburn NOT participating in the market, he was affecting interstate commerce.
FIlburn was growing wheat on his own land for his own use. Interstate commerce has no bearing, unless one accepts the perverted logic of the govt. The Govt was forced to make that screwy argument so that they could claim an interstate commerce issue that the FED could “regulate”. The justices that defied all common-sense to decide in the govt’s favor in that case should be posthumously tried for treason, considering all the down-stream damage that has been done based on that moronic decision.
Opinions may vary.