Shooshmoo
Well-known member
With the Obamacare case in particular...well that one has gotta challenge the bounds of the commerce clause, even if you support it.
Nope. Not even particularly close.
With the Obamacare case in particular...well that one has gotta challenge the bounds of the commerce clause, even if you support it.
They may not be finished, but we can all agree that, much like Atlanta, they are in decline.
Being able to describe how and why the bill was put together is different that being paid to vote against it. Kagan is a liberal. Thomas isn't.
Least shocking political flip-flop ever. Don't these guys understand that their actions are memorialized and studied forever? You can't talk your way around your own statements on the record. Not when your sudden about-face is so clearly political. Apparently Scalia has no issue with being canonized as a political-motivated activist judge who changed his legal interpretations to support short-term preferred agendas. Most judges would bend over backwards to avoid such a legacy. I guess Scalia doesn't care about his place in history.
Not to hijack, but why all the Atlanta hate? Are you the one who keeps posting this? I've read it several times on here. I'm not an Atlanta apologist, but I live here and want to know the definition of being "in decline" so I can better plan my day.
Being able to describe how and why the bill was put together is different that being paid to vote against it. Kagan is a close call. Thomas isn't.
http://www.volokh.com/2012/03/09/understanding-justice-scalias-concurring-opinion-in-raich/
There has been a lot of chatter lately about how Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion in Raich somehow binds him to rule for the government in the challenge to the ACA. As the lawyer for Angel Raich, I admit to being disappointed by the outcome of the case, by Justice Scalia’s vote, and by his opinion. But during the course of that litigation I became very familiar with the issues raised by that case, and since then have come to appreciate the problem with which Justice Scalia was wrestling. There are two very important implications of his opinion in Raich, and neither benefit the government’s case.
Nothing binds him, but he can't wiggle away from several unqualified statements he made in his opinion. There's not really much room to even try to redefine them so that it looks like he's not contradicting himself. He can't run from his longstanding support of a powerful and sweeping Commerce Power. Not without being transparently political.
By articulating it on several prior threads, 2&2 means he has made legal arguments that make the unfrozen caveman lawyer look like Clarence Darrow. His prediction that I would continue to whine like a bitch, however, makes 2&2 look like Nostradamus.
http://www.volokh.com/2012/03/09/understanding-justice-scalias-concurring-opinion-in-raich/
There has been a lot of chatter lately about how Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion in Raich somehow binds him to rule for the government in the challenge to the ACA. As the lawyer for Angel Raich, I admit to being disappointed by the outcome of the case, by Justice Scalia’s vote, and by his opinion. But during the course of that litigation I became very familiar with the issues raised by that case, and since then have come to appreciate the problem with which Justice Scalia was wrestling. There are two very important implications of his opinion in Raich, and neither benefit the government’s case.