It's just judicial activism by a W. appointee. This ruling has very little prayer of being upheld.

Would this law be constitutional?
Health care providers can turn away patients who cannot pay for their care, no matter how urgent or what the consequences of their illness may be.

If it is unconstitutional to require patients to buy health insurance, is it also unconstitutional to require hospitals and physicians to provide care without compensation?

I'm not a lawyer but I play one when I'm bored at work.

It seems to me that this ruling would also apply to car insurance. We've had to buy that for years, presumably for the benefit of society because they only make you get liability insurance (just guarantees that someone else will get paid).

These guys saying it is unconstitutional to require the purchase of commercial insurance either haven't taken into account the precedent of required auto insurance or they argue that a person doesn't have to own a car so they are free to avoid the car insurance requirement if they want to. The later argument being what we in the pretend legal field call "a crock of shit".


"Activist judges, legislating from the bench!" - the asshole formerly know as the President

SCOTUS is bought and paid for by Pharma, Agribiz, Weapons, Banking, etc.

They will do whatever the fuck their overlords tell them to do.

/endofline

Man, they're right- it is kinda bullshit to require people to buy commercial health insurance... If only someone would have thought to put a public option in there or something.

You young folks just lucked out that means Medicare is also unconstitutional.

When the AARP figures this out Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensalcola, Fla will be found stabbed to death with the walker still sticking out of his chest.