We can’t help but cheer Judge Roger Vinson’s argument: "It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America, would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be 'difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power' and we would have a Constitution in name only ..."
But suspicion that this judge, like all others, is concerned for his political party’s interests, not ours or the Constitution’s, mounts the more we investigate. First, decisions in the four legal challenges Obamacare has generated fall along party lines: two judges who owe their appointments to Democratic presidents decreed this blatantly anti-constitutional law constitutional, while judges with debts to Republicans found the opposite. Further evidence comes from Vinson’s “sid[ing] with the administration on one major issue in the case: the expansion of Medicaid to cover more low-income people.”