...but I think it will be difficult to apply it that way to something basically interstate like the health insurance industry.

'The Supreme Court’s ruling against him was unanimous.

“Even if appellee’s activity be local,” Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, referring to Mr. Filburn’s farming, “and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.”

The Obama administration says the decisions of millions of people to go without health insurance have a similarly significant effect on the national economy by raising other people’s insurance rates and forcing hospitals to pay for the emergency care of those who cannot afford it.'

...which way the wind in Justice Kennedy's gown blows.

*finger-cross*

I read somewhere that Scalia is interested in the correct interpretation, too.

Are we saying the government should be able to dictate we take part in whatever activity Congress shall deem to in the interests of interstate commerce?
Further, that our employers must act as the conduit of commerce? In effect, we if Congress so dictates must buy from the company store and what they say, in what quantity?

That being the case there is no such thing as freedom, we are slaves to those who are supposed to represent us.