[Amendment10]

"Did you mean to say Scalia instead of Thomas?"

I’m sorry if I offended you concerning Thomas.

Regardless that Thomas and Scalia are supposedly the “good guys” on the Supreme Court, their imprecise references to the Constitution and case opinions is undoubtedly not helping low-information voters get up to speed with the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers.

The problem with judges and justices saying merely that a given issue is “constitutional” or “unconstitutional” for example, is that low-information voters are going to take their word for it regardless of what the Constitution actually indicates about an issue.

[tacticalogic]

Regardless that Thomas and Scalia are supposedly the “good guys” on the Supreme Court, their imprecise references to the Constitution and case opinions is undoubtedly not helping low-information voters get up to speed with the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers.

Of the two, Thomas is more likely to properly address the Constitutional issues with an eye to original intent.

[Ken H]

I’m sorry if I offended you concerning Thomas.

You and Thomas seem to be in agreement on the Commerce Clause. Scalia was the one who endorsed Wickard in the Raich case, not Thomas.

I don't understand your comments. Where do you and Thomas differ on the Commerce Clause?