[ConjunctionJunction]

Congress can regulate "Mental activity" under the interstate commerce clause? That's a new one.

[metmom]

ping

[CharlesWayneCT]

The problem with comparing different cases, and doing the “democrat judges rule for the law, republicans don’t” is that they are not the same cases.

In this case, the plaintiff argued that a mental decision was not commerce, and therefore should not fall under the commerce clause. This judge ruled that this distinction was not viable.

But that’s not the same argument used by the states. Plus, the states had better grounds to sue because they are currently having to implement a law that they felt was unconstitutional, while an individual for the most part has yet to be effected by the individual mandate itself.

Individuals may not really get a standing to sue until one of them is forced to pay higher taxes because they didn’t buy insurance.

It is well-known that the two cases we won were the best-argued cases, the other cases have been individuals trying different angles.

[Campion]

The commerce clause is rapidly becoming to the new socialist America what the Enabling Act was to Hitler's Germany: the carte blanche for any power the government cares to exercise.

[freespirited]

I thought the commerce clause pertains to INTERSTATE activity.

How do these bien-pensants of the judiciary know whether your mental activity is crossing state lines?