Predicting what will happen based on the judge’s questions in the courtroom is always fraught with peril.

Nevertheless, it does appear that the so-called Florida suit (filed by 20 state attorneys general and challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare) has a very good shot at moving forward.

The Hill newspaper has this summary:

A federal judge in Florida heard oral arguments Tuesday in a multi-state challenge to the new law and indicated that he would likely dismiss several of the counts but would allow the suit to go forward on at least one count. The Pensacola News-Journal reports that U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson will decide before Oct. 14 on how to proceed.

The court will have oral arguments Dec. 16 on motions for summary judgments from both the federal government and the states challenging the law, the newspaper reports. The challengers in the lawsuit include 20 states and the National Federation of Independent Business.

”A federal district judge in Florida appears to be making the right decision,” Hadley Heath, policy analyst at IWF, writes.  She has a good analysis. Here is a key point:

At the center of many of the cases (including the Florida case) is the individual mandate.  Think about it – has the government ever required every person in the United States to purchase something before?  Many states have auto insurance mandates, but as Michael Cannon of Cato said, "You can avoid the auto insurance mandate by divesting yourself of a car. The only way to avoid a health insurance mandate is by divesting yourself of a body."

There is a good recap of the legal issues on The Corner.