Because where in the Constitution is the free market or economic liberty an enumerated power? The commerce clause is clearly there, but in this case there is nothing else in there to oppose the commerce clause. To state that we have a "right" to not be forced to buy anything is therefore false, as far as American jurisprudence should be concerned. The conservative justices will inject ideas of economic libertarianism into American jurisprudence that have no constitutional basis

It seems like such a strange thing to oppose because there are already tons of states that have laws just like it and noone has issues with it. Over here you can't own a car without car insurance, it's just not allowed. Although I guess the argument for how those would be different is that you don't necessarily have to own a car, but it's still extremely similar, it's the government forcing you to buy something by law.

The argument goes that having the ability to coerce purchase (so, Massachusetts healthcare mandate, State-level car insurance law) is not protected by the Bill of Rights, but it is not an enumerated power of the Constitution, either. Therefore, the States have the ability to do it (as it's not protected in the BoR), but the Feds do not (as it is not an enumerated power).

The Feds can only legislate on areas which are allowed under the constitution, that's the idea of limited Government. The States can legislate on everything else... as long as it doesn't come into conflict with the Constitution or (constitutional) Federal law.

The reason why I put constitutional in brackets there is because, in reality, the States try not to come into conflict with all Federal laws, whether they are constitutional or not. States have the ability to nullify unconstitutional Federal laws within their jurisdiction... but there is often very little political will to do so (one example is Virginia nullifying the controversial part of the NDAA12 - which means that part of the NDAA is not the law in Virginia | I also believe that there is a movement among more conservative States to nullify some of the Fed's regulations on the second amendment - but, for the most part, they don't bother, mainly due to pressure from the Federal Government (Texas tried to nullify the TSA, for example, but the Bill failed when the Feds threatened them with "consequences").).

The commerce clause is what opposes it.

The commerce clause gives the government power to regulate commerce... not to create it.

It's a matter of the government trying to read something in to the commerce clause that isn't there.

See the tenth ammendment.  All powers not granted expressly to the federal government go directly to the state.

Hence why "Obamacare" is illegal but "Romneycare" isn't.

If the government wants universal healthcare it should do what the government usually does when it reaches past it's consitutional barriers.  Either bribe them by giving them more federal money or threaten then by cutting them off.

I don't see how limiting the federal government to its enumerated powers is activism. But if it is, it's a form of judicial activism that's A-OK with me.

This:

Because where in the Constitution is the free market or economic liberty an enumerated power?

Makes me wonder if you understand what the term "enumerated power" even means. You're literally asking, "Where does the Consitution empower the federal government to not do things?"

I've argued extensively in this forum that the law is probably constitutional under the commerce clause, but I don't think it's "clearly" so.

First of all, the "free market" is not a thing, it is an absence of a thing. The free market emerges through property rights - with the ability to voluntarily exchange your property. All other economic systems require some kind of forced removal of property by the state. Which means, under the 5th amendment, the Feds cannot take the property without a trial to determine its value. That, there, is an implied protection of the "free market".

Second, you're right about the Commerce clause existing. But, the Commerce clause has been bastardised from it's original intention. This mandate would stray even further from its original intention, and even extend power beyond what the clause has been used for in previous cases.

The argument of the Justices is that this law changes the relationship between the Federal Government and the individual in a very "fundamental" way. The Feds have never claimed (successfully) the ability to force purchase of a good/service before. When the Feds change something "fundamentally", there is a far stronger litmus test that it must pass before it is deemed Constitutional - the Government needs to prove that what it is doing is necessary, that it will work, and that there are no suitable solutions which will not cause this "fundamental" change. This is the point that the swing voter Justice Kennedy put up, he even used the term "fundamental".

The question now remains as to whether the judges believe that the mandate passes this litmus test. It's clear that half the court does, and half doesn't. It's down to whether Kennedy does or doesn't believe. It's a shame that such a controversial Bill, which will affect every citizen in the country, and give the Feds new precedents to coerce purchase, has basically come down to the views of one man. But that's what happens when you load the Supreme Court with partisan judges.

Right, partisan judges like those who think that property rights is a thing more strongly than the due process clause implies. I would feel that the mandate does not violate due process, and it is within the federal government's power to regulate commerce (because we have a long history of the federal government regulating healthcare in some form) and that to be able to successfully implement certain regulations, universal market participation is required (under the vaunted laws of free-market economics), thus is needed under the commerce clause and not in violation of the 10th amendment because it is clear that health care has become a shared power, whereby under the Supremacy clause, Federal government wins.

That's... a really big stretch... and also something you could literally say about ANY market with that kind of reach in logic.

I don't mean this in an insulting way or anything, but it feels like you wrote this while drunk.  Your essentially argueing what Scalia asked and what event the goverment prosecutor denied (but never really properly articulated why) that pretty much the government could force you to buy Broccoli if it wanted.

Afterall, using your logic, we have a long history of federally regulating food... and there are regulations that could only be passed with universal food participation... or really, universal anything participation, because just about anything goes down in price when you add more buyers.

Tired, not drunk, hence the brevity. I was, however, being kept awake by drunk people, so there is an association there.

The difference is that there is a government need to regulate healthcare and that forcing individuals to buy health insurance is pursuant to that need to regulate healthcare. This cannot extend to allowing the government to force us to buy anything and everything because forced purchases would harm material goods markets (by driving prices up unnecessarily) as opposed to the insurance market where more demand actually lowers prices because you have a larger pool of healthy people paying in.

The most this could lead to on any sort of "slippery slope" argument would be the government forcing us to buy different varieties of insurance for the good of the insurance buying public, whereas forcing us to buy brocolli would be bad for the brocolli buying public, driving prices up in the short run and causing markets to shift to the production of unnecessary amounts of brocolli in the long run (lowering prices but creating macro inefficiency). Insurance being a non-tangible good means it can be created limitlessly

If the representation from the Attorney General abandoned that argument, it is simply a failure to think of it in the proper direction. The insurance market is apples-oranges against pretty much every other kind of goods or service.