When the Supreme Court is making decisions, I would hope they would be willing to grant individuals freedom before they would grant greater power to the Federal government. If it is a choice of say, an individual's right to have an abortion or the Federal government being able to exercise greater power to require abortions in certain cases I would hope individual freedom is chosen. The Constitution is to limit the powers of the Federal government to those given to it by the people through the Constitution. If the constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to do something then it should not be allowed to do it.
If every one but one person or a small minority of people in the United States of America, wanted to band guns, but the constitution was not changed, then the constitution should prevail, and even if strict gun control is in the main stream it should not be the ruling of the court. But they should defend the Constitution even if a small number or even if no one is for the 2nd amendment.
You may hear at the confirmation hearings of a Supreme Court nominee, someone wanting to make sure he/she is in the 'main stream' but if the 'main stream' is unconstitutional, then don't be main stream. To change the constitution is tough, and it should be. If something is main stream enough it should be easy to alter the confirmation.
So as the Court is considering the Health care Act they should be much harder on the government, than on the plaintiff. If the government has difficulty defending the law, then it should be over turned. It should be a very strong and compelling case for the court to allow a federal mandate to occur.
Lets hope the court protects freedom, and puts down tyranny.