Posted on 03/02/2012 3:26:26 PM PST by neverdem
The Obama administration repeatedly cites the conservative Supreme Court justice in defense of its health care overhaul.
When the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments later this month on whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, which requires all Americans to buy or secure health insurance, oversteps Congress’ lawful authority to regulate interstate commerce, the Obama administration will be drawing heavily from the legal arguments of a surprising ally: conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.
That’s because in 2005, when the Supreme Court last heard a major Commerce Clause challenge to a federal regulation, Scalia sided with the liberal majority and wrote a sweeping opinion in favor of federal power. In that case, Gonzales v. Raich, the Court held that the cultivation and consumption of medical marijuana entirely within the confines of the state of California still qualified as “commerce...among the several states” because this intrastate use of medical pot “substantially affects” the interstate black market in the drug.
Justice Clarence Thomas found the majority’s reasoning specious, and famously stormed in dissent, “If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”
But Justice Scalia wasn’t so worried about limiting the government’s reach. Congress “may regulate even noneconomic local activity,” Scalia wrote in his concurring opinion, “if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce.” Scalia also distinguished his vote in Raich from two recent decisions where the Supreme Court had endorsed a more limited scope for the Commerce Clause. In the first of those cases, United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court struck down the Gun Free School Zones Act because possessing a gun within 1,000 feet of a school was not an economic activity...
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Plus Justice Scalia says Supreme Court should take back seat to voters
What about weathervane Kennedy? When he dissents from the conservatives, it's almost always from a libertarian viewpoint, e.g. Lawrence v. Texas, in which Kennedy wrote the opinion. IMHO, it was all about liberty. Maybe we'll get lucky, and they reverse Wickard v. Filburn which caused a huge expansion of the Commerce Clause.
Maybe Scalia can differentiate between “regulate” and “initiate”.
Outcome-based jurisprudence, in this case on behalf of the drug war. It stinks no matter who does it.
If Obamacare can be viewed through the eyes of a ban somehow, then it might get Scalia’s blessing.
If this scumbag Damon W. Root spins any faster, he’ll drill a hole in the ground.
His column, however, represents exactly the kind of Democrat propaganda we can expect until the Supreme Court kills Mengelecare.
Both Silberman and Sutton cited Scalia’s opinion in 2005 upholding strict federal regulation of marijuana in the case of Angel Raich, a Californian who used home-grown marijuana to relieve her pain. “If Congress could regulate Angel Raich when she grew marijuana on her property for self-consumption,” Sutton wrote, “it is difficult to say Congress may not regulate the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care.”
http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?a=rp&m=b&postId=1165037.
Interesting - since it links "intrastate commerce" to the "interstate black market in the drug". Which, BTW, is a criminal enterprise ...
HOWEVER, I was NOT aware that the is a "black market" for interstate healthcare ...
Is there a healthcare "dealer" down on my street corner who can sell me "bootleg" healthcare insurance ???
At what point do the citizen’s of the United States legally become slaves? I want people to think about it. At what point do taxes and fees and such make us Debt-slaves to the Government? At what point do regulations and ordinances force us to live a certain way, dress a certain way, eat a certain way?
Isn’t that a form of slavery when a man or woman has no choices left to them and have to obey the orders of an “overseer”, (bureaucrat), and the “master” (Politician or elected official)? And if they don’t they can be punished until they do obey.
I can see it now. IRS agents posing as “independent” health insurance providers on Craigslist. “No driver!”.
It is a black market because Congress used the New Deal Commerce Clause to make it so.
HOWEVER, I was NOT aware that the is a "black market" for interstate healthcare ...
If Congress has authority make intrastate drug markets a crime, they can do the same to intrastate health care policies.
Is there a healthcare "dealer" down on my street corner who can sell me "bootleg" healthcare insurance ???
The cash you slip to your doctor will meet that criteria.
The Supreme Court will not be deciding whether or not Obamacare is Constitutional. They will be deciding whether or not the U.S. Constitution is still in effect or if it is simply a relic of our past.
The Court will strike it down because, otherwise, it cedes ALL control over EVERY aspect of EVERY American’s life to the federal government. There are five Justices that understand this.
If Obamacare, on the other hand, is upheld, we will be living in a totalitarian state. The Republic is dead.
We have a THREAD WINNER! Jim, What's his prize? Seriously, that pretty much captures it in a sentence.
You nailed it. Let’s just pray that the 5 who understand will continue living healthy lives until they get to rule.
Stunning! BEFORE there was the Scalia obumbumcare “problem” or Thomas oboomboomcare “problem” THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE BIG FAT elenahkegan ogoonlooncare PROBLEM! Solve the elenkankan PROBLEM to bring legitimacy to this course FIRST.
If we wish to be true to a Constitution that does not cede a police power to the Federal Government, our Commerce Clause’s boundaries simply cannot be “defined” as being “ `commensurate with the national needs’ “ or self consciously intended to let the Federal Government “ defend itself against economic forces that Congress decrees inimical or destructive of the national economy.” Clarence Thomas UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ALFONSO LOPEZ, Jr. 1995— Justice Clarence Thomas
the cultivation and consumption of medical marijuana entirely within the confines of the state of California still qualified as “commerce...among the several states
How do you compare forcing people to buy something to consumption of grass. Now if he ruled we had to smoke dope..
I have stated before, Zero and the dims know this is going down in the court and they’re pandering to their base on contraception. “See we wanted to help you, so reelect me and we’ll change the court”.
Six of the SC justices are (nominally?) Roman Catholic, including Kennedy.
I’m hoping that Obama has shot himself in the foot in this regard, after pissing all over the RC church recently.
I don't know, but two supposedly conservative appeals court justices did just that and cited Scalia in doing so. See my post #6.
I have stated before, Zero and the dims know this is going down in the court and they’re pandering to their base on contraception. “See we wanted to help you, so reelect me and we’ll change the court”.
I wouldn't bet the rent money that Obamacare will be rejected by SCOTUS.
“I’m hoping that Obama has shot himself in the foot in this regard, after pissing all over the RC church recently.”
The four conservative Justices, and even Kennedy in this instance, have been able to see first hand what Obamacare has spawned. It ain’t pretty and it clearly demonstrates it is only the beginning of what is to come.
Obama may have put the final nail in the coffin for Obamacare himself.
“Scalia sided with the liberal majority and wrote a sweeping opinion in favor of federal power”
That’s what happens when you are outcome-oriented rather than just applying the constitution as originally intended. You might like the outcome even though you’re bending the constitution in that case but it’ll come back to bite you.
Thomas was right to apply the constitution as intended, even if against medical marijuana.
The last thing we need to do is give Mordor on the Potomac more power.
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.