Judge Sutton joined in the court's 2-1 opinion upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, and authored a concurring opinion explaining why the federal government has the power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to penalize individuals who choose not to purchase health insurance under the law's mandate. Here's just one excerpt from his well-written opinion:
"The basic policy idea, for better or worse (and courts must assume better), is to compel individuals with the requisite income to pay now rather than later for health care. Faced with $43 billion in uncompensated care, Congress reasonably could require all covered individuals to pay for health care now so that money would be available later to pay for all care as the need arises. Call this mandate what you will—an affront to individual autonomy or an imperative of national health care—it meets the requirement of regulating activities that substantially affect interstate commerce."The media so far has seemed to pay more attention to the couple of district court opinions holding the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional than to the majority that have upheld it. Opponents of health insurance reform will no doubt continue to argue loudly for its repeal or for overturning it in the courts. But today's decision shows that the opponents are losing the argument. And that is due to judges like Jeffrey Sutton who are more concerned with principled resolution of important constitutional issues than they are with politics.
(Previous recipients: Rand Paul, Jan Brewer, Kit Bond, Lindsey Graham)
UPDATE (6/30/11): See this Steve Benen column documenting the discrepancy in coverage of court decisions upholding the constitutionality of the Act vs. coverage of decisions finding it unconstitutional.)