I don't see why that's an issue? It just means that a certain part of the bill is not constitutional, whereas the rest of it is. There's no requirement to find a whole bill to be either constitutional or not; some sections of it might be found to be unlawful while the rest of it is found to be lawful.

Well, one case in Michigan was decided in favor of the clause. The other case (in Florida) was allowed to proceed, and as far as I know has not been decided yet. Unless you meant a different case. Either way, it will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court to decide, once the Virginia and Florida cases work their way up through the lower courts.

I haven't heard any evidence that the judge was paid by anybody, or working as a lobbyist for anyone. If he was, and there is evidence of it, then you're right, it would render his decision invalid and the case would have to be tried again by a judge with no personal ties to the parties of the suit.

Personally, though, I found his ruling to written in a very reasonable manner. ("Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause power to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce ... the legislative process must still operate within constitutional bounds." ) No personal attacks, no attacks on Obama or anyone else.

I wouldn't call him an activist judge, anymore than the judge who ruled in favor of the clause would be an activist judge.