It's truly remarkable. Regardless of what your personal or ideological feelings are about ObamaCare's mandate and overall plan, there is no denying that the arguments among the Justices in this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jVI-5FrT9rnC_jcuPxybOarMs47w?docId=00c0c0d18d914f6a80d3a6d43431c7c3 make it clear that "constitutional law" is not the point of debate between the factions. In fact, constitutional law is ONE SIDE'S argument while the other side's argument is merely dissatisfaction with the current system and how the current mandate is an integral part of an attempt to improve it....law be damned.
It really is that simple. The liberal Justices, if you read into it, are not making any legal arguments in favor of upholding the law. Skim through the article and look at what they say. They simply reassert the economic rationale behind the law. But that's not the job of the SCOTUS. They aren't there to advocate for whatever research or rationale went into any law. We can make plenty of arguments based on whatever rationale we want. If it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. There's a rationale behind sterilizing criminals or making a minimum household income to have children or whatever idea you can come up with. So what? It's unconstitutional. So it's moot.
The Justices are there to interpret whether laws are constitutional. PERIOD. The old saying about "legislating from the bench" is clear to see here. If one is to take the structure and purpose of the 3 branch system at face value, these Liberal Justices are clearly making a joke of it all with their arguments.
Oddly enough, a single-payer system is probably NOT unconstitutional for the simple and unambiguous reason that Congress has the power to impose taxes. Go figure.