Judge Vinson's Logic Wll Make No Sense To the Supreme Court Statists

I was reading through Judge Vinson's ruling on Obamacare. Vinson said that compelling individuals to purchase something is an unprecedented act on the part of the Feds. He makes a pretty funny argument here that makes a lot of sense.

But Vinson says he can’t find any Supreme Court guidance on this particular question because Congress has never regulated inactivity before. If judges allow such a novel form of regulation to stand, he writes,

Instead of attempting to control wheat supply by regulating the acreage and amount of wheat a farmer could grow as in Wickard, under this logic, Congress could more directly raise too-low wheat prices merely by increasing demand through mandating that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily, rationalized on the grounds that because everyone must participate in the market for food, non-consumers of wheat bread adversely affect prices in the wheat market. Or, as was discussed during oral argument, Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals, not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier, and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system. Similarly, because virtually no one can be divorced from the transportation market, Congress could require that everyone above a certain income threshold buy a General Motors automobile — now partially government-owned — because those who do not buy GM cars (or those who buy foreign cars) are adversely impacting commerce and a taxpayer-subsidized business.

I can see it now. Had the Democrats retained both houses we might very well have had a law demanding that we all vote Democrat and buy sushi on the way to the polls. It's for the good of America- the statists would argue.