“Which of the justices claimed that ‘inactivity is an activity’? She had a point. Doing nothing is a choice not to do something”
The more I think about arguments like this, the more it makes me hate lawyers. Pure sophistry, it is. Doing nothing may be choice, or may not. It’s entirely possible not to buy health insurance without having ever considered it. It is also possible to make a choice to buy insurance without ever going through with it. You get run over by a bus on your way to the local insurance provider, for instance.
Now, that choice, was it commerce? No, obviously. You have to actually buy the insurance before you’ve engaged in commerce. Chosing not to buy insurance, likewise, is not commerce. It may have been economic activity, I’ll grant. Sitting on the couch doing nothing is an alternative to getting up off your ass, and choosing it demonstrates you value nothing over whatever doing something would have gotten you. But it still isn’t commerce. You need an overt action for that.
Pain is pleasure to the sadist.
There are SC cases for every contingency.
The solicitor for The Obammunist cites the farmer who grew wheat only for his family and his animals. He still grew more than FDR dictated for his acreage.
The guy sold nothing.
The court said by growing more than his allocation he was not participating in commerce (needing to buy), thus impeding it, thus subject to the commerce clause.
The court is the final arbiter of intent.
Don't forget, Kagen, Sotomeyor, Ginsberg and Breyer can read minds.
yitbos