I'm not a lawyer, but I don't really understand this ruling. After all, Virginia already requires all drivers to get insurance (or pay a penalty of, IIRC, $500).
Would it be ok if the rule was limited to all people who are eligible to receive health care?
And how is this different from requiring people to pay into Social Security and Medicare? Actually, the only difference I see between this and Medicare is that you're paying for coverage that you're not eligible to receive right away (for most people, anyway).
Plus, I do have a legal question as well. If the mandate doesn't yet apply to anyone, how does anyone have standing to challenge it? If anyone has standing, then getting standing to challenge warrantless surveillance shouldn't be a challenge. And yet, somehow it has been.
The ruling is kind of interesting, though, in that it only strikes down the mandate. That certainly makes for an interesting situation, come 2014; it'd be awfully difficult for the insurance companies to make money. Would it make them stop offering individual coverage, entirely?
Update: I forgot to add this story. Even if you ignore the money angle (which I don't agree with), there's still the issue that he certainly doesn't sound like someone likely to be bringing an open mind to the decision-making process.