[txhurl]

**** Kennedy raised the possibility that the plaintiffs [i.e., the government] were right that the mandate was a unique effort to force people into commerce to subsidize health insurance, but the insurance market may be unique enough to justify that unusual treatment.” ****

---

AH1952 have been here and done that in Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001), where a United States Supreme Court decision which held that a person’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the subject is arrested for driving without a seatbelt.

The court ruled that such an arrest for a misdemeanor that is punishable only by a fine does not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

---

O’Connor herself admitted that if ruled for, the courts nationwide would be overloaded with plaintiffs looking to recover.

[Arrowhead1952]

been here and done that in Atwater v. Lago Vista

Yes, I remember that was the talk of the town back then. The bigger problem was that the officer who gave the ticket did not allow a full explanation of the situation at the scene.