Full Disclosure: I am not a lawyer nor a trained legal scholar.
There was one thing I forgot to mention in my earlier post. Kessler actually provides the definition of a particularly critical word; ironically, she completely undermines the definition in the same paragraph, then then spends the rest of the opinion further undermining that definition because it doesn't fit her political views. But this is par for the course for leftist activists in other activities. Let me show you what I mean.
On page page 45 of the opinion, Kessler states (I referenced this same page on the other post, but the following was a couple of sentences earlier):
As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power.
So there's the premise; this really is the first time the courts are having to decide if non-activity (or "mental activity", as noted by Kessler) can be regulated under the Commerce Clause. This is under a subsection Kessler titles "Economic Decision-Making Is an Activity Subject to Congress’s Commerce Clause Power."
In an earlier subsection called "An Individual’s Decision to Purchase or Not to Purchase Health Insurance Is an 'Economic' One" (on page 38), Kessler quotes from Justice Stevens in Gonzales v. Raich [emphasis mine]:
The first question which must be answered is whether Plaintiffs’ decisions not to purchase health insurance are “economic” in nature. As noted above, Congress has clear authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate the insurance markets because insurance policies are “commodities” in the flow of interstate commerce. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass’n, 322 U.S. at 552-53, 546-47, 64 S.Ct. 1162. Both the decision to purchase health insurance and its flip side--the decision not to purchase health insurance--therefore relate to the consumption of a commodity: a health insurance policy.
It therefore follows that both decisions, whether positive or negative, are clearly economic ones. See Gonzales, 545 U.S. at 25-26, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (“‘Economics’ refers to ‘the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.’”) (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 720 (1966)). Thus, unlike Lopez and Morrison, which involved non-economic activity such as the possession of a firearm or gender-motivated violence, this case involves an economic activity: deciding whether or not to purchase health insurance.
So wait a minute. If I'm not involved in "the production, distribution, and" more importantly "consumption of commodities," then according to the Webster's definition of "economics" that Kessler uses what I'm doing is not "economics". Except in the "community-based reality" that is Kessler's world, and the world of the left.
But let's take it further. I don't have the 1966 Webster's definition, but Webster's most current definition of the word "commerce" (the noun) is as follows [emphasis mine]:
1: social intercourse : interchange of ideas, opinions, or sentiments
2: the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place
Hmmm. Now as we know, activist Justices on the Supreme Court in Wickard and Gonzales v. Raich decided that one doesn't have to be engaged in the buying and selling of commodities to stop Congress from regulating a commodity. But the parties affected were involved in the production of commodities, so they were involved in Webster's definition of "economics" that Kessler cited. But as we can see, those who aren't involved in "the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities," those not purchasing health insurance, aren't engaging in "economics" by any stretch of the imagination, even under the definition cited by Kessler. Therefore, commerce isn't going on at all and the mandate cannot be considered Constitutional under the Commerce clause.
So Kessler is ignoring the real definition in order to define her own version of it. This is typical of the left. Even if something in reality exists, the left will ignore reality and substitute it with their own, as Kessler did in this decision with the definition of "economics" and "commerce".
But it doesn't end there. A pig of a Democrat, Massachusetts Rep. Mike Capuano, said this in our new age of "civility" [emphasis from original]:
“I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary,” Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Ma.) told a crowd in Boston on Tuesday rallying in solidarity for Wisconsin union members.
So we have this leftist slug promoting violence and death, à la Frances Fox Piven. This is after weeks of hearing how conservatives pushed Jared Loughner to murder and maim in Tucson last month. But absolutely nobody on the left, including in the Democrat media, will call Capuano on this. To them, it didn't happen. It can be there right there in front of their faces, and they will say there's nothing there. Because it doesn't fit the "narrative" of the left. Their "community-based reality" is all that matters. Period.
When the Tea Party protests were in high gear, the same leftists and the Democrat media made it a point to highlight supposed racism that is the hallmark of those protesters. Yet in Wisconsin, we have all kinds of evidence showing those protesters with signs calling Republican Gov. Scott Walker the equivalent of Mubarak, Hitler, a rapist, and other such nonsense. Many of these protesters made death threats against Walker and other Republicans. But for the left and the Democrat media, those things didn't happen. Even if a news report from the Democrat media shows such signs, the Democrat media won't mention it because to them they aren't there. At all. We can scream and shout that it is from up on high and all the live long day and the Democrat media will just say it ain't there. That's how we know Obama is a true blue leftist activist; anything that he doesn't agree with just doesn't exist to him, and there is no way anyone will change that.
This is what we are up against. We can be thankful that the American people as a whole are not even close to being represented by the left and the Democrat media, and are a lot more intelligent than that, more intelligent than what the left and the Democrat media would have us believe.
Addendum: President Obama set the standard; he helped encourage protesters to bring down the Mubarak regime in Egypt. It's time we start protesting to demand not only the resignation of Obama, but his entire corrupt and lawless administration; this is the standard Obama set. He has no business being in office, and neither do any of the clowns that work for him. We also need to be telling our representatives to begin impeaching judges like Glady Kessler. This country was founded and based on the rule of law, and the law is based on the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, any ruling that isn't based on the Constitution is a violation of the law, an impeachable offense. It's time that these jerks get punished and join the realm of the unemployed.