It will all come down to the broccoli question. On one side is the argument that ALL FOLKS consume health-care in some way at some point. On the other is the notion that the government can't make me buy and eat broccoli. This, I believe, is the dodge on the broccoli question, we don't all consume broccoli regardless of whether it is good for us, but we ALL consume health care. I believe upholding the law will rest on that point and allow the Supers to not see it as enabling the government to require folks to buy things. This is something all folks consume, regardless of whether they buy it. This, I suspect, will form the basis of allowing its regulation under the Commerce clause. It is border-less, all consume it, it effects economics locally and nationally, ... it meets all of the Rehnquist requirements for assertion of the Commerce Clause. (IMO) but some of these folks are veeeerrry political on the bench IMO.
I'm thinking the lib 4 + Kennedy and Roberts (6-3) or perhaps even a wipe-out, 8-1 (the speechless one decided a decade ago).
| 
