Nice analysis. Thanks for the post.
Thank you. I was simply giving my opinion of what I thought would happen. While some people on here view that as defeatist, I don't think it is beating around the bush. While some on here like to pretend that the SCOTUS is comprised of constitutionalists, it is not. Justice Thomas is the only voice for limited government on the court. Often ignored and denigrated for never speaking in oral arguments, as well as for writing very brief opinions, his writings are always lucid and easy for a layman to understand. When you believe that the federal government is one of limited and enumerated powers as he does, you don't need to write very lengthy opinions.
Take a look at some choice quotes from Justice Thomas's dissent in Gonzales v. Raich, where the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to ban marijuana even where a state has legalized it for medical purposes. Such a decision makes a mockery of our federalist system, and Thomas aptly points that out:
"If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
"If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."
Powerful stuff. We need eight more like Justice Thomas on the Court. I can guarantee you that he will vote to strike down ObamaCare. The fact that no legal commentator that I've listened to can guarantee that any of the other 3 "conservatives" will strike it down should be very disturbing to most of us.
P.S. — the primary reason why Scalia and Thomas split on Commerce Clause cases is because Scalia has a NASTY habit of respecting Supreme Court precedent, even when it is wrong. Roberts and Alito do the same thing. Thomas, on the other hand, says that we should look to the FOUNDERS to determine how they would have intended the Commerce Clause to operate. This is the only correct approach, in my opinion. Scalia respects the Court’s past incorrect interpretations of the Commerce Clause, even if he may disagree with them. Justice Thomas believes that two wrongs don’t make a right, and that bad law 70 years ago is still bad law. It doesn’t suddenly become good law after sitting out in the sun for awhile. The reason why his approach is best is that it limits the powers of the federal government and forces it to stay within the confines of the constitution. This is why you will sometimes see Clarence Thomas as the lone dissenter on a case. Others on here have criticized me for predicting that as a possibility, but it’s not hard to understand why he is often the lone dissenter.