Court sets 5 1/2-hour hearing on health care

When the Obamacare monstrosity Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law, there was incredulity on the part of some supporters that anyone might think it could possibly be unconstitutional. There was some mockery of those of us who thought it might not pass muster.

Yeah, well, it may or may not be tossed out, but obviously the constitutionality is not a foregone conclusion. SCOTUSblog:

Setting the stage for a historic constitutional confrontation over federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday granted three separate cases on the constitutionality of the new federal health care law, and set aside 5 1/2 hours for oral argument, to be held in March...The Court will hold two hours of argument on the constitutionality of the requirement that virtually every American obtain health insurance by 2014, 90 minutes on whether some or all of the overall law must fail if the mandate is struck down, one hour on whether the Anti-Injunction Act bars some or all of the challenges to the insurance mandate, and one hour on the constitutionality of the expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled.

I've already made up my mind, of course. I find no valid reading of the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to impose the kind of program that this law imposes. The Supreme Court may agree with me, it may disagree, but it won't change my opinion on that. There are too many decisions which have already expanded the Commerce Clause jurisprudence far beyond anything I believe the founders would have sanctioned for me to have confidence in the outcome.

I am curious to see what Scalia and Thomas, at least, have to say about it. One way or the other, we'll know the outcome when we head to the polls next November...