Bad Precedent

Here's why this the Supreme Court's ruling sets a bad precedent: It opens the door to the following very likely scenario. Let's say I am a city council in Boulder and want to expand public transportation service in and around Boulder as well as allow everyone in Boulder the opportunity to use public transportation whether they can afford it or not. As a council we pass a law requiring that you buy a bus pass if you make over $40,000 per year and those who make under that amount will receive bus passes for free. You can choose to NOT buy a bus pass, but then you will be "fined" $250 per year. This is no different in the Court's eyes than Obamacare.
 
Additionally it puts no bounds on what the government can "mandate/tax" what we buy. Want more affordable housing? The government just mandates that EVERYONE own mortgage insurance regardless of their credit level or what they still owe on their mortgage. With the additional insurance, lenders can feel more secure in lending money to those who are likely to default knowing that there is money coming from those who won't default.

Want to lower polution and increase fuel economy? -- Just mandate that all Americans must purchase a hybrid vehicle and "penalize" them if they don't. While we're at it, let's stimulate American manufacturing and create more jobs by simply mandating that the hybrid you buy must be an American-made car.
We all know that incandescent lightbulbs are evil, but how about those cfl bulbs? Those contain harmful mercury and still aren't as efficient as LED bulbs, so let's just mandate that all Americans buy LED lightbulbs. Can't afford LED lightbulbs? Well, the government will give them to you if you live below the poverty line with the money that is coming in from taxing those who aren't buying LED bulbs.

Where will it end? My hope is that it stops before the government says that we all need to install iPads in our homes with FaceTime continually running, so that they can make sure we are doing our calisthenics each morning.