To say we are entering into commerce by NOT entering into it is the ultimate stupidity.
She goes on to say that, by not entering into commerce and buying insurance, it makes the cost higher for others, and effectively makes them a party to commerce because they are affecting it.
I guess she missed it - we ALL "affect" commerce, either by participating or not participating. Example: electric cars. We do not all buy a electric cars. But according to Sotomayor and other liberals, if we did, the cost of electric cars would come down. Those who are NOT buying one are affecting the price for those who do, so we need to mandate that everyone buy one. We need to force a person into commerce so that we can regulate them.
The problem, of course, is twofold. First, the cost would not come down - supply and demand would dictate that the price goes up. Second, those who do not buy the car, though they may be "affecting" commerce, are not INVOLVED in commerce, and therefore cannot be regulated under the Commerce Clause.
A note to Sotomayor - there is a world of difference between AFFECTING commerce and PARTICIPATING in it. I do not play football. By choosing not to PARTICIPATE, I am affecting the sport because I am not dragging down an otherwise capable team with my clumsiness. And therein lies the difference between participating, and affecting. Affecting something does not translate into PARTICIPATING in it.
After all, the weather affects commerce - but Congress cannot regulate it.