[Ken H]

I almost laughed out loud at that one. Preventing someone from doing something and FORCING someone to do something are two completely different things.

Two appeals court justices, both friends of Scalia, cited his opinion in Raich to uphold Obamacare:

Both Silberman and Sutton cited Scalia’s opinion in 2005 upholding strict federal regulation of marijuana in the case of Angel Raich, a Californian who used home-grown marijuana to relieve her pain. “If Congress could regulate Angel Raich when she grew marijuana on her property for self-consumption,” Sutton wrote, “it is difficult to say Congress may not regulate the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care.”

http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?a=rp&m=b&postId=1165037.

[cuban leaf]

“it is difficult to say Congress may not regulate the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care.”

Key word: Regulate.

Also, Regulate is very different from “mandate the purchase of insurance”.

I think very specific things are being argued in this case. It is ALL about requiring people, by simple virtue of being American, to buy something, and at the federal level. That a single judge would even consider to rule in favor of it stinks to high heaven.

[cuban leaf]

“it is difficult to say Congress may not regulate the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care.”

Also, it is just an opinion. One I disagree with.