The Volokh blog on the ACA.

Too many well-reasoned, legally analytical posts to link to, so just bookmark the whole blog...

Two liberal female Supreme Court reporters -- Lithwick and Greenhouse -- have recently made a pre-emptive strike: if the Court rules against the ACA's individual mandate, then the Court is acting politically.

If you stick solely to mainstream legal coverage, you're missing so much of the legal nuance that protects the rights of younger, less affluent American to choose their financial and health options in the coming years. Should this underrepresented group (in the MSM) be called upon to pay for the care of those with "pre-existing conditions", and those middle-class "children" being carried on their parents' plans until the ripe old age of 26?

Liberals can promise all they like, and they're free to take their own risks and hedge their bets. But when they lose -- when their promises cannot be upheld without confiscating unused dollars from lesser others to fulfill their grand insurance subsidization plans of bailing out the private insurance industry, which simply cannot function healthily in what they're paying out for care today from currently collected premiums without injection of fresh monies from uninvolved others -- then "we're all in this together".

Back to the drawing board, well-meaning liberals who can't afford to finance their big promises on their own dollars without picking the pockets of those downline.