Paragraph best summarizing whole article:

"I have always had the impression that Justice Scalia's primary approach to judging is political," Tim Jost, a professor of law at Washington and Lee University, told TPM. "Therefore, he will interpret the Commerce Clause broadly to support federal laws he likes but narrowly to strike down those he doesn't."

mrshowrules: Paragraph best summarizing whole article:

"I have always had the impression that Justice Scalia's primary approach to judging is political," Tim Jost, a professor of law at Washington and Lee University, told TPM. "Therefore, he will interpret the Commerce Clause broadly to support federal laws he likes but narrowly to strike down those he doesn't."

Obvious tag... right where it belongs.

JusticeandIndependence: Big sigh. How can someone of such authority be so dishonest?

He's a Republican. It's what they do.

If he was born 400 years ago Antonin would have fit right in as one of the Medici or Borgia family style Popes. You know the ones with secret mistresses, private assasains and encouraged indulgences.

Scalia will do whatever the hell he pleases. He doesn't fundamentally give a rat's ass about the Constitution. If he did, we might get the Fourth Amendment back.

Vodka Zombie: I'm pretty sure our Supreme Court has been bought.

It absolutely has. Clubs and outside groups throw all of the justices loads of dinner parties, speaking engagements, etc. None of that should be occuring at all, for any of them.

Frankly, I'd go a step further and say that the SCOTUS was flawed from day one due to allowing POTUS to nominate judges. OF COURSE they'd nominate judges that are friendly to their political tilt - it's what any politician would do. These judges, like most others, need to be elected by the people.

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Vodka Zombie: I'm pretty sure our Supreme Court has been bought.

It absolutely has. Clubs and outside groups throw all of the justices loads of dinner parties, speaking engagements, etc. None of that should be occuring at all, for any of them.

Frankly, I'd go a step further and say that the SCOTUS was flawed from day one due to allowing POTUS to nominate judges. OF COURSE they'd nominate judges that are friendly to their political tilt - it's what any politician would do. These judges, like most others, need to be elected by the people.

Could not disagree more, I think this would lead to even more politicization. If anything I think congress should get to nominate 10 people, the president gets 10 nominees and 10 more names get pulled from the ranks of all federal judges with excellent ratings from the American Bar. They get put in a tumbler and we draw a name at random.

NuttierThanEver: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Vodka Zombie: I'm pretty sure our Supreme Court has been bought.

It absolutely has. Clubs and outside groups throw all of the justices loads of dinner parties, speaking engagements, etc. None of that should be occuring at all, for any of them.

Frankly, I'd go a step further and say that the SCOTUS was flawed from day one due to allowing POTUS to nominate judges. OF COURSE they'd nominate judges that are friendly to their political tilt - it's what any politician would do. These judges, like most others, need to be elected by the people.

Could not disagree more, I think this would lead to even more politicization. If anything I think congress should get to nominate 10 people, the president gets 10 nominees and 10 more names get pulled from the ranks of all federal judges with excellent ratings from the American Bar. They get put in a tumbler and we draw a name at random.

Don't draw names have a Spelling Bee/elimination type quiz on American and Constitutional Law.

Scalia has been critical of Wickard v. Filburn since long before "Obamacare" was a sparkle in Obama's eye.

Wonder how much he's made off of this?

/we need to amend the Constitution to end that appointment for life crap

kronicfeld: Scalia has been critical of Wickard v. Filburn since long before "Obamacare" was a sparkle in Obama's eye.

Do you have an example? Seriously.

kronicfeld: Scalia has been critical of Wickard v. Filburn since long before "Obamacare" was a sparkle in Obama's eye.

On matters such as these...or NFL contract negotiations, I defer to Kronicfeld.

If the Court rigidly stood by stare decisis, "separate but equal" would still be the law of the land. And Justices sometimes change their own minds. Hugo Black deeply regretted voting in favor of the US on the issue of internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII in the Koramatsu case. Rigid adherence to some ideological concept or rigid adherence to one's own opinions come hell or high water may be de rigeur in the Politics tab, but that's not always the case with judges.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Wonder how much he's made off of this?

/we need to amend the Constitution to end that appointment for life crap

The lifetime appointment to SCOTUS was intended to put the judges above the
political process. The framer's thinking was that if they were appointed for life
they would be more fair-minded in deciding issues than if they were directly
elected or had a term of service.

In the main, this is probably been a good strategy: there is a great tradition of
judges being put on the SCOTUS breaking their previous patterns (ISTR that
Earl Warren was a conservative before his appointment, but turned out to be
one of the most progressive judges in history). Unfortunately, the lifetime
appointment also means that party hacks like Scalia and Thomas also get in.

This court, though, has to be the most politicized court since at least before
the Civil War, and the conservative water carriers aren't anywhere near done
with their damage.

If the court does overturn the mandate, it's going to be hard to know how to react. It's been more than 75 years since the Supreme Court overturned a piece of legislation as big as ACA, and I can't think of any example of the court overturning landmark legislation this big based on a principle as flimsy and manufactured as activity vs. inactivity. When the court overturned the NRA in 1935, it was a shock - but it was also a unanimous decision and, despite FDR's pique, not really a surprising ruling given existing precedent. Overturning ACA would be a whole different kind of game changer. It would mean that the Supreme Court had officially entered an era where they were frankly willing to overturn liberal legislation just because they don't like it. Pile that on top of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United and you have a Supreme Court that's pretty explicitly chosen up sides in American electoral politics. This would be, in no uncertain terms, no longer business as usual. Link

kronicfeld: Scalia has been critical of Wickard v. Filburn since long before "Obamacare" was a sparkle in Obama'sRomney's eye.

FTFY