[andyk]

How do the feds have authority to tell them what kind of product they can sell when there is no interstate commerce involved?

Heh. First they use the power of the interstate commerce clause to prevent insurance companies from engaging in interstate commerce (i.e., selling across state lines). Then, they use the interstate commerce clause to regulate the strictly intrastate activities of insurance companies.

It's mind blowing. But, they've been doing it for years, as long as they claim that the intrastate commerce has some kind of affect on interstate commerce.

Started with Wickard v Filburn, and then was affirmed in Gonzalez v Raisch by none other than the strict constructionist, Antonin Scalia.

They've been doing it to intrastate production of marijuana for years, I hate to think people are surprised that it's applied to other things (light bulbs, toilets, etc.).

Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.

Scalia said that.

[ConorMacNessa]

There's a well established line of cases standing for the proposition that the use of the "instrumentalities" of Interstate Commerce subjects one to the ICC. I can't think of any company in this day and age that goes not utilize those instrumentalities - they include just about every means of communication employed in the contemporary world. The ICC has been expanded to the point that it has become a license for the feds to regulate any enterprise they want to get their hooks into.

America demands Justice for the Fallen of Benghazi!

Eagles Up! Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more!

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

[lepton]

That is certainly the precedent. Scalia and Thomas regularly ridicule extensions of that in dissenting rulings.