The one thing in this that has been a puzzle to me from the beginning (of the hearings) is that Scalia “joke” about broccoli. I’m sure Scalia is not a fool, in every way, and whether it is broccoli or bacon (the analogy was a human requirement, food) there is such an obvious answer to that inane comment that I don’t know why he said it.

Why didn’t anyone point out to him (and presumably to all others stuck on the “commerce” clause) that nobody prices broccoli based on the age/sex/health of the customer. The analogy is invalid.

In fact, any public retailer HAS to sell broccoli to anyone that walks in from the street, at the same price as to anyone else, which is pretty much what ACA says insurers should do.

Did I miss something subtle or obvious?