Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Audio: Scalia lectures Verrilli on enumerated powers (“What is left, if the gov't can do this?”)
Hotair ^ | 03/27/2012 | AllahPundit

Posted on 03/27/2012 8:20:10 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

The guy who uploaded this to YouTube calls it a “benchslap.” It's loads of fun, and the point about limited powers will sound familiar. The key part comes early when Scalia jumps in to challenge Verrilli's citation of Court precedent. Those cases dealt with commerce, he says; in this case, the legislation is aimed at people who aren't participating in commerce, i.e. people without insurance. That's a gut-punch to the left since, once you make that move conceptually, the Commerce Clause defense of the statute is hanging by a thread. You can follow his thinking over the rest of the clip from there. If it's not commerce, then Congress has no power to regulate it, and if Congress has no power to regulate it, then the Tenth Amendment says this is a matter for the states. And to think, a few days ago, Democrats thought they might be able to use Scalia's Raich opinion to swing him over to their side.

Roberts was a bit more equivocal in today’s arguments but read Philip Klein’s analysis of the rhetoric he used in his comments from the bench. There were an awful lot of phrases in there suggesting he was arguing from belief against the statute, not merely as a devil’s advocate to probe the lawyers’ arguments. Meanwhile, over at SCOTUSblog, Kevin Russell looks at Roberts’s and Alito’s questioning and wonders, “Is Kennedy the only possible fifth vote for the government?” His conclusion: Yep, pretty much. Exit question: C’mon, a Reagan appointee’s not really going to be the fifth vote for the ObamaCare mandate, is he? Good lord.

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE AUDIO



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: obamacare; scalia; scotus; verrilli
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: SeekAndFind

I implore the good people of Texas and Oklahoma to have mercy and be gracious to refugees should this upcoming ruling go the wrong way.

Please leave your borders open for a time while discussions of succession are had internally. It might take me a few months to get the family moved to your area. I promise to be a good and productive member of your new society.

Thank you in advance.


21 posted on 03/28/2012 8:12:13 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (With regards to the GOP: I am prodisestablishmentarianistic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

I’m starting to think that nut job Charles Manson was right. He ranted about how it’s wrong for nine men to control the lives of more than 200,000,000 people.

It’s much too easy to corrupt a small group. This court is corrupt. There are four honest patriotic men on this court. There are four socialists. There is on opportunist.


22 posted on 03/28/2012 8:21:36 AM PDT by Terry Mross ( "It happened. And we let it happen. - Peter Griffin, Family Guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

First we’ll close the southern border first.

Then we’ll have to politely ask some people to move out. Sheila Jackson Acorn-Head is on the list.

Then we’ll have to be very picky about who we let in. Good luck on making the grade.

Oh, how I wish this could REALLY happen.


23 posted on 03/28/2012 8:24:46 AM PDT by Terry Mross ( "It happened. And we let it happen. - Peter Griffin, Family Guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher
Yup, it will be a king george moment. Problem is, where are the leaders equivalent to our founding fathers?

Aww, that is a good question. I hope they have already been elected at the state level. Rick Perry? Mitch Daniels? Jan Brewer? Mary Fallin?

24 posted on 03/28/2012 8:32:00 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (With regards to the GOP: I am prodisestablishmentarianistic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If our founders wanted Congress to regulate ALL commerce, and all activity or non-activity that can have an effect upon commerce - then why did they specify only INTERSTATE commerce was to be regulated by Congress?
25 posted on 03/28/2012 8:35:41 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The Constitution guarantees the States a republican form of governmnt. If there is “nothing left”, then there is no republic - the contract is broken, and any authority derived from it nullified.


26 posted on 03/28/2012 8:44:44 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Nah Justice Scalia, it’s what’s after this. The Government drafting me, giving me a rifle, and sending me to war in France is hard to top. It was very important to the nation then. How important is health care needs to be decided now, not the power of government.


27 posted on 03/28/2012 9:03:08 AM PDT by ex-snook ("above all things, truth beareth away the victory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
Then we’ll have to be very picky about who we let in. Good luck on making the grade.

LOL. I lived in Austin for about 3 years. My daughter was born there. I voted for Rick Perry for Governor. I'm a member of FR.

Do I qualify? :o)

28 posted on 03/28/2012 10:01:18 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (With regards to the GOP: I am prodisestablishmentarianistic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hoosier-Daddy
I am confident the brave will show and make a stand.
29 posted on 03/28/2012 10:09:40 AM PDT by TheCause ("that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
If our founders wanted Congress to regulate ALL commerce, and all activity or non-activity that can have an effect upon commerce - then why did they specify only INTERSTATE commerce was to be regulated by Congress?

Well, you see, it depends on what the definition of "interstate" means. On the one hand, it means commerce between states or across state lines.

On the other hand, it doesn't.

See?

30 posted on 03/28/2012 11:15:07 AM PDT by Talisker (He who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
Sure sure.

When our founders wrote that Congress will have the power to regulate interstate commerce, OBVIOUSLY, they meant both interstate commerce, intrastate commerce, and any activity or non-activity that could have an effect upon commerce./s

31 posted on 03/28/2012 11:28:04 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

I don’t know, man. Allowing your daughter to be an anchor baby is a slippery slope. However, after we get rid of all the libs in Austin there will be plenty of openings.


32 posted on 03/28/2012 4:43:59 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( "It happened. And we let it happen. - Peter Griffin, Family Guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson