Posted on 02/09/2011 8:53:15 AM PST by Hawk720
As the challenge to Obamacare’s constitutionality approaches the Supreme Court, the question on everyone’s mind is: How will Anthony Kennedy vote? But perhaps we should also ask: How will Antonin Scalia vote? Scalia is known as one of the Court’s most conservative justices, but a concurrence he wrote in a 2005 case should give opponents of the health-care law pause.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
This should be done by our so called representatives. Not the Court system.
Maybe they should determine if the presidential signature on that law is valid first.
Although I am not in favor of pot legalization, I said at the time that Scalia’s reasoning in the Raich case would come back to bite him on the butt. The war on drugs has done more to pervert the constitution than any other cause. Why is it that otherwise rational, conservative constitutionally solid Justices will turn the constitution into a pretzel in their attempts to uphold clearly unconstitutional drug enforcement laws?
That’s why if repealed, it won’t hit the SCOTUS
I said something similar to Scalia’s ruling in Raich, but it was in a firearms thread about how it related to Stewart vs. US when that was sent back to the Ninth Circuit Court to be reviewed in light of the Raich decision -— ultimately, I did say that if Stewart’s victory was overturned, then Obamacare might have an ally in Scalia if a challenge comes to SCOTUS, but I just used that for demonstration purposes about an entirely different point.
Let me be the first to say, that if Justice Scalia votes in favor of the Obamacare crap sandwich, given the fact that he knows full well what RR thought of socialized medicine...that this lady will simply jump off a bridge in despair.
I’ll find a bridge in S. Utah, trust me.
And I’ll know I’m not long for this world.
Well, it was a questionable decision, no doubt. But drugs are something people SELL, and even if someone isn’t selling his own pet plants, it effects the market in drugs.
Gubbermint-mandated health insurance isn’t something anyone is selling. It’s something the Gubbermint wants to force you to buy.
So, I’m still hopeful on this.
Don’t worry. Scalia finds ways to twist around to suit his personal agenda. Hence he was on the right side of a gun-control commerce clause case, and on the wrong side of a marijuana-control commerce clause case.
He didn' just decline to fight the expansion of the CC. He helped to reaffirm, and thus solidify, one of the most expansionist CC rulings of the last century. By reaffirming Wickard, he basically helped kill any hope of a "limited" government.
Just where in the commie (commerce) clause are the words “the People”? Then why does it give government the power to regulate commerce between “the People”? And where does it say congress can regulate stuff that “might affect commerce”? Do we put people in jail because they “might” commit a crime? I guess with the black robed terrorists we have in the supreme court, that just “might” happen!
Bullsh!t.
Then there was that Playboy case, I forget the name. Clarence Thomas is solid and consistent. Scalia is squishy on social issues.
Yeah, I have a way with words. If Scalia twists things to his agenda, as you say, well, we all might as well move to China, because it is already over in this country.
Haven’t read Raich or Wickard.
Two reasons. First, because the Constitution created an unaccountable, supreme judiciary that gets to decide what the words of the Constitution mean, without appeal. Second, because the framers, over the objections of the anti-feds, shot down every attempt to make the Constitution a document of "expressly delegated" powers only, choosing instead to create "implied powers."
Implied powers + Article 3 = unlimited government.
It's a fundamental flaw in the system.
Limited government has been over for a long, long time. I wouldn't take it so hard. It's outside your control. China? Yuck.
By the title I figured they were talking about Gonzales v. Raich. Scalia really screwed that one up, abandoning any principle of a constitutionally limited federal government. Thomas’ dissent nailed it, and even O’Connor’s wasn’t bad.
“But drugs are something people SELL, and even if someone isn’t selling his own pet plants, it effects the market in drugs.”
Maybe... but that market is not something that is legally regulated, it’s a black market. So, it’s not really sensible that the Justices were worried that a pot grower was negatively affecting the price of goods for legitimate pot dealers :)
That argument is almost like saying... you can’t have sex with your wife because that would negatively affect the prices in the prostitution market.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.