Skip to comments.Audio: Scalia lectures Verrilli on enumerated powers (“What is left, if the gov't can do this?”)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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
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.