the auto insurance 'mandate' is the requirement that you carry liability insurance. that isn't something they want you to have for your sake, but for the 'other guy' that you might hit and cause damage or injury to. the other guy is the one the state is protecting because someone else shouldn't suffer undue harm because you bought a car and then wreck it. but i always tell people to buy the uninsured motorist coverage-that way they are covered if the other guy is shirking his responsibilities. i've heard that as many as a quarter of the drivers in this state don't have auto coverage. i can't imagine taking that risk.
as for other coverages such as comp and collision-those are only required by a lien holder-again, to protect the lender if you total your car and you owe them money on something now worthless. same with homeowners, only required by the entity with the loan.
in both cases , the requirement is to protect others-not the car owner. completely different scenario.

The Supreme Court asked the very same tough and seemingly biased questions the two lower court very conservative judges asked, before those two very conservative judges ruled clearly and without doubt to uphold it. You don't know what they will do, until they do it, but law precedent is on the side of upholding it all, as indicated by the two ultra-conserves lower court that already have agreed.

Right now all the noise is simply politicking and the press trying to create a story out of the vacuum of two-plus months of waiting.