From page 42 of the ruling by Judge Roger Vinson:
It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compelan otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting — as was done in the Act — that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power”[Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only.
“Obamacare court ruling gives a shoutout to Tea Party movement”-
Which is exactly why Judge Vinson’s hyper-political and confusing misjudgments produced a ruling that’s not only flawed, but hard to respect as a work of legal scholarship.
The outcome of this case was a foregone conclusion. This particular case was brought by conservative state officials from 26 states, who carefully chose the venue. Vinson had already telegraphed the outcome, so the ruling just makes official what everyone expected anyway. Republicans are thrilled, of course, because activist court rulings are to be celebrated, just so long as it’s activism the right can agree with.
So two Republican-appointed federal district court judges have found that the individual mandate, an idea Republicans came up with, is unconstitutional. And two other federal district court judges, appointed by Democratic presidents, came to the opposite conclusion. About a dozen other federal courts have dismissed challenges to the health care law.
In other words, when you hear Pethokoukis say that “courts” have a problem with the Affordable Care Act, remember that it’s actually a minority of the judges who’ve heard cases related to the law.