+ Verdict in favor of health care law's constitutionality

"It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not 'acting,' especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice," Kessler writes.

A judge who uses his brain beyond bare minimum! Bravo! tame

Yup. The "inactivity" reasoning against the health care law is just plain wrong as long as people without health care insurance get health care and someone pays for it. We have universal health care in practice!

If you bother to read the ruling, the sentences just before your quoted "semantics" wording are as follows:
"As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical
activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making,
there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls
within Congress’s power. See Thomas More Law Ctr., 720 F.Supp.2d at
893 (describing the “activity/inactivity distinction” as an issue
of first impression). However, this Court finds the distinction,
which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance."

Thus, this wacky judge believes it is equally ok to establish (using the commerce clause) federal government regulation of mental activity as well as physical activity. That is a wide open avenue to Orwell's 1984 thought police. A more dangerous idea I can't imagine. It doesn't fly and every American that values freedom should concur. Surely even you progressives recognise the dangers created by such thinking? Do you want President Palin regulating your thoughts?

Ron: Do you want President Palin regulating your thoughts?

tame: If We the People cared what I want, that authoritarian entity would never have placed so much importance on this pit bull with lipstick.

Ken -- I was not quoting anything, I was summarizing my understanding to date and the question is not whether or not I will "bother" to read it the question is when I will get the time to read it. And, of course, I can go no further in this discussion 'til I do.

Ken, keep it up, I have a super heavy duty unbreakable BS meter now. The Plaintiffs, that is the folk bringing suit, made the claim of "mental control." the court by what you quoted found that argument WITHOUT MERIT. Of little significance. You do know that the decision pointed to a weakness in the "semantics" of the plaintiff's argument.

I would expect anyone as well versed in the law as you seem to be to comprehend that.

That's good to hear.

Yes it is. I've not read this decision yet, but the decisions are quite instructive.

The other massive error made by this so-called rational judge is her claim that “Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lifetimes, and it is not always possible to predict when one will be afflicted by illness or injury and require care.”
True enough, but using health care services is not the issue. The individual mandate requires a health insurance purchase. One can avoid that by deciding to self-insure. Thus the judge is comparing apples and oranges.
One could equally say that citizens' health care choices ought to be covered by privacy concerns and be none of the governments business at all.
This ruling is not worth the paper it took to write it.

My understanding Ken, is that one of the anti-health care law arguments is that it is forcing an action being taken -- as if no action is taken -- but the fact is for most action is taken at one time or another. We already have universal health care it's more expensive the way it is now.

The "it's more expensive the way it is now (so we must do something)" argument doesn't make the current law "solution" a legal answer. You have to be rigorous in separating the object "health insurance" from the new rule that this legislation establishes. Such a rule WILL lead to more nefarious actions by the Federal government as it removes an important barrier of protection to personal liberty. Following the rule of law means we have to find solutions to problems (no matter how large or important the problem) where the solutions themselves make sense going forward in future applications. Otherwise it is a case of the "ends justify the means". Such is a bad way to govern, it is mob rule democracy (like we see on display in Wisconsin) rather than a constitutional republic like we're supposed to have.

Ken: Following the rule of law means we have to find solutions to problems (no matter how large or important the problem) where the solutions themselves make sense going forward in future applications.

tame: Ken, why aren't you writing this to the insurrectionist Tea Party???

@Ken, I didn't comment on whether or not -- it's more expensive -- has anything to do with a legal answer or not, that was just an afterthought to the idea that the non-activity argument is a bogus one.

Do you have any supporting evidence that the new rule will lead to nefarious actions b the federal government or that the new rule does not make sense going forward?

And what are you talking about -- Mob Rule? It's Mob Rule to express one's thinking in a public forum? For who, Ken, Democrats?

Gail, You are kidding right?!. It's most annoying and deceptive when progressives pretend that they don't know what they are trying to do. A few examples:
Obama's EPA regulating CO2 without Court or Congressional authority.
Obama's FCC implementing Internet regulations without Court or Congressional authority.
As the interpretation of the commerce clause (needed to allow ObamaCare to stand) tacitly dissolves the intent and meaning of the other constitutional rules on Congress then such an interpretation is invalid.
The President said he wanted a single-payer system and that it would take some years to get there. This is the first illegal step in that direction (regardless of public input).
If the government can require you to purchase private health insurance, it can likewise require you to do anything. Such a list might include a health club membership (for your health), a Government Motors hybrid vehicle (for the protection of the environment), a requirement to take a college class (for your education). Where does the application of this rule end? Answer: it doesn't. What would make the Nanny-State government cease from requiring us to do things/buy things, etc. for our own good?
As CS Lewis reminds us:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Rahm Emanual's statement "You can't let a good crisis go to waste".
Social Security was "found " constitutional ONLY because FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court with "friendlies". Then Medicare and now Obama-Care are claimed constitutional BASED ON Social Security.

I will have to get back to this later -- since you don't note under what authority the actions might have been taken I will go back and do that. I'm just kind of busy on another project right now.

Anything that might be proposed for the Common Good still has to go through the process and I am not seeing club memberships, etc., making it through. I would consider none of those to be worries 'til I saw a piece of legislation.

I've no idea how you can claim tyranny with a process like the one we have.

I don't get your Rahm issue -- every crisis IS an opportunity for something.

interesting,

i will say no more on the matter (here)

LOL, Ryan, I don't blame you!