Originally Posted by M_Six
Don't have time now to read the decision, but I'm dying to know how they interpreted the Commerce Clause. Must be along the same lines are regulating crop growing, i.e., yes, it's a state thing, but it affects commerce over the whole US. Got to be something along those lines.
Actually, justice Roberts, casting the swing vote said it does NOT hold up under the commerce clause, but is acceptable as a form of fee or taxation. However, the others had split views of the commerce interpretation along party lines.
What amazes me is how the media has ignored the fact that Mitt Romney brought this into law in Massachusetts years ago, and it continues to be the law here. I know there are constitutional differences between state and federal, but most Americans don't care about that fine point, rather they seem to think that Obama is instituting something "new" and idealogically bad to us.