[Dreaming]

Copying links from my phone doesn't work well so I'll post a link later if Richard doesn't beat me to it.

A federal appeals court has ruled parts of the federal health care bill are indeed constitutional. The ruling judge is considered to be a Conservative, nominated by W. The ruling called health care different from other forms of commerce.

[uMG6uOSo]

Here ya go.

TPM: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...aw.php?ref=fpb

For the first time, a Republican appointed federal judge -- part of a three-judge circuit court panel -- has ruled that the individual insurance mandate in President Obama's health care law is constitutional.

The Sixth Circuit appellate court panel -- the first appellate court to rule on the question -- dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that levying a penalty against people who choose not to purchase insurance exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause powers. The justices also dismissed the underlying argument that the provision amounts to "regulating inactivity."

The development represents a significant victory for the Obama administration, which is facing numerous challenges to the mandate from individuals, conservative interest groups and Republican governors. A number of district court judges have ruled on the question already, and in a striking pattern, all Republican-appointed judges have ruled against the administration, and all Democratic judges with the administration. Today's development upends that trend.

"No one is inactive when deciding how to pay for health care," wrote Judge Jeffrey Sutton -- a conservative legal star, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and was appointed by President George W. Bush -- in his concurring opinion.

Senior Judge Boyce Martin -- a Carter appointee -- went further still in his opinion. Though he affirmed the view that health care is a unique realm where no person is "inactive," he also argued that, even if that weren't the case, the Constitution places no limits on Congress regulating inactivity.