I have some issues with the article.
So that’s three (including Kagan) that would have to recuse. How does that then work, the remaining few rule? Is that adequate consideration? I could maker a case it is not. Three less judges is not really SCOTUS is it?

How did HuffPo manage to overlook the Kagan issue? The have a point to make and an axe to grind. And some scholars disagree that there is any need to recuse over this. We ask jurors to dismiss certain momemnts in trial via judges instructions. “The jury will disregard… etc., etc.” Why would we assume the Supreme Court Justices can not do the same? If we have a partisan issue, that’s how.

I too have an axe to grind. Medical reform needs to happen. But without further upending constitutional limits on Federal mandate power. The states are empowered the Fed is not. Frankly I find this dramatic expansion via the commerce clause to be a terrible mistake. My state can do better than DC. The commerce clause is already overused.