In 2011 a judge told us to forgo something is acting, in 2018 a judge insists refusing to help is not the same as impeding

Judge Kessler in 2011, here, a liberal Clinton appointee, in re Obamacare.

Judge Mendez in 2018, here, a liberal Bush 43 appointee, in re immigration enforcement.

Liberals always rule to advance liberal objectives, even if it means that not acting is acting once upon a time but later on in a different situation it is not.

The manifest politicization of the judiciary ought to mean that they all must resign when the guy who appointed them finishes his term. It would be a more honest acknowledgement of the truth that the law is an ass, and that elections have consequences.

To Forgo Something is Acting, Says Judge Kessler

But National Review's Rich Lowry is having none of it, here, responding to this statement by Kessler:

"It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not 'acting,' especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something." ...

Long ago, the Commerce Clause got stretched beyond recognition. In 1942, the Supreme Court used it to uphold a law penalizing a farmer for growing wheat in excess of his approved allotment, even though it was for his own consumption. At least the poor sap was doing something. According to Kessler, Congress could also punish him for acting on a thought not to grow wheat.

Opponents of ObamaCare say that if it's blessed by the courts, there will no longer be any limiting principle on federal regulatory power. If that seems far-fetched, behold the mental activities of one Judge Gladys Kessler.

Which begs the question, Isn't Kessler's reasoning a residual influence of the Christian religion on matters of state?

Christianity teaches that there are plenty of sins of commission, but also of omission, as per Paul's letter to the Romans, and the letter of James. By refusing to purchase health insurance, by Kessler's reasoning, one is almost committing a sin against the state, of, by and for the people, who will have to bear the costs of paying for the deadbeat's omission.

At the Last Judgment the offender would be punished in hell, but in the Immanentized Eschaton which ideologues are trying to foist upon us, he'll just pay a fine.

Virtue should be so easy.