If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   In a sign of what's to come, Justice Scalia suddenly decides he doesn't like the legal precedent that makes Obamacare constitutional   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 43
    More: Obvious, Scalia, obamacare, constitutionality, UCLA School of Law, Commerce Clause, healthcare reform, federalisms, Supreme Court decisions  
•       •       •

5417 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jun 2012 at 12:53 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-18 11:31:31 AM
10 votes:
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."
2012-06-18 11:48:15 AM
8 votes:
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.
2012-06-18 11:59:35 AM
5 votes:

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.
2012-06-18 12:58:26 PM
4 votes:
You know what? fark it, strike it down. Leave us with nowhere to go but public option. I dare you.
2012-06-18 11:47:38 AM
4 votes:
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.
2012-06-18 05:32:11 PM
2 votes:
The thing I don't get about Scalia is why more people (Conservatives primarily) don't see through his sham-show.

He presents himself as a Conservative "strict constructionist" who believes in limited court powers, and keeping the court out of policy-making. But in many of his opinions (especially the important ones) it's blatantly obvious that he goes in with the outcome in mind, cherry-picks some case-law, cheerfully dismisses the reams of prior jurisprudence that disagrees with him, and then acts as if his conclusion is the only one that can be made.

He's a political hack who refuses to admit to himself that he bases his decisions on his own political views, not the law.
2012-06-18 02:04:34 PM
2 votes:
Anyone that thinks that the "commerce clause" hasn't been stretched beyond all reason has their head firmly implanted in their ass. The "commerce clause" (much like the "welfare clause") has been used to increase the power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty. Then again, this being fark, I wouldn't be surprised that so many approve of the government being involved in every aspect of our lives.
2012-06-18 01:24:06 PM
2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: No HERO tag?
Come on subby.

"expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason" by deciding that "a farmer's cultivation of wheat for his own consumption affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause."

no one else here thinks that isn't over-reach?


tell that to the war on drugs.
2012-06-18 01:23:31 PM
2 votes:
You people are missing the point:

Scalia was for an overarching Federal regulatory power when it was about keeping people off the debbil weed. A weed that KILLS people; it's about HEALTH.

Scalia is against an overarching Federal regulatory power now when it's about forcing the American people to buy things. Things that mkae you POOR; it's about BUSINESS.

Get it? You stupid libs and your point-missing...
2012-06-18 01:09:07 PM
2 votes:
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
2012-06-18 01:07:39 PM
2 votes:
There's really only 2 mutually exclusive views on HCR. You either believe that everybody is inherently part of the health care system or you don't.

If you do believe that everybody is using some level of health at all times, there is no way to truly opt out because you will be treated if you get hit by a bus, regardless of whether you have health care.

If you don't believe that people are a part of the health care system at all times, then it should be a moral and legal imperative to stop treating people without health care.

We can't have it both ways, where we treat everyone while charging only some. You either charge everyone and treat everyone or charge some and treat some.
2012-06-18 01:07:33 PM
2 votes:
Translation: Scalia isn't buying the liberal talking point and is instead actually making a decision based on the Constitution.
2012-06-18 01:05:57 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-06-18 01:00:02 PM
2 votes:

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


Seriously? He basically used Wickard v. Filburn as the sole precedent for his concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Raich upholding the Controlled Substances Act.
2012-06-18 12:29:03 PM
2 votes:
Wonder how much he's made off of this?

/we need to amend the Constitution to end that appointment for life crap
2012-06-18 11:48:27 AM
2 votes:

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.
2012-06-18 11:36:33 AM
2 votes:
I'm pretty sure our Supreme Court has been bought.
2012-06-18 11:35:13 AM
2 votes:

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


He's a Republican. It's what they do.
2012-06-18 11:32:48 AM
2 votes:

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.
2012-06-21 03:33:42 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: firefly212: Or are you of the mindset that every law should be a constitutional amendment, since the constitution doesn't clearly enumerate the specifics?

When the commerce clause, general welfare clause and necessary and proper clause are run hard and put up wet as justification for overreach, what is the point of enumerating power? There was no need to enumerate the power of government to establish a post office since it could be argued that the practice of sending mail is interstate commerce. There was no need to enumerate the power of congress to set laws for bankruptcies and patents since those things can be considered interstate commerce.

Liberals know why the commerce clause was written - it just makes it less convenient for them to justify the things they want to do.

We're being told that simply be existing, we are affecting commerce in some way and can now have our lives controlled and We're being told that 'general welfare' is in the eye of the legislator.


I don't think this is a liberal v. conservative issue... the commerce clause, and the Wickard interpretation of it in particular, end up doing weird things to both sides... the Conservatives love Wickard when it means they can regulate the lives of people they don't like (marijuana users, etc), but hate it when it gives government license to affect their lives... the Liberals love Wickard when it means they can use it to curb freeloaders (even individual non-participation) putting a drag on our economy (like the ACA), but hate when it the same individual effects reach to the world of drugs.

Both parties are on both sides of Wickard, depending on the subject to which it is being applied... the only way they're the same is that they're both hypocritical as hell.

You make it seem like this is a new thing like "now" we're going to have our lives and medical practices controlled by Congress... as someone with MS, whose neurologist, like the AMA and AAN, knows that marijuana has been much better for spasticity relating to MS than many of the other treatments out there, I'd like to point out that Conservatives have been cheering for government having a seat in my doctors office for decades now. The new argument, for Conservatives is that the government has a place in my doctors office at the desk for medical decision making, but when I get to the front desk to pay, all of a sudden theres a new magical right to my decision-making they weren't aware of minutes before. The liberal argument is basically the converse, they say the government has a place at the front desk (as they believe that affects interstate commerce), but shouldn't be following you behind closed doors at your doctors office.
2012-06-20 03:16:24 PM
1 votes:

firefly212: Or are you of the mindset that every law should be a constitutional amendment, since the constitution doesn't clearly enumerate the specifics?


When the commerce clause, general welfare clause and necessary and proper clause are run hard and put up wet as justification for overreach, what is the point of enumerating power? There was no need to enumerate the power of government to establish a post office since it could be argued that the practice of sending mail is interstate commerce. There was no need to enumerate the power of congress to set laws for bankruptcies and patents since those things can be considered interstate commerce.

Liberals know why the commerce clause was written - it just makes it less convenient for them to justify the things they want to do.

We're being told that simply be existing, we are affecting commerce in some way and can now have our lives controlled and We're being told that 'general welfare' is in the eye of the legislator.
2012-06-19 09:24:40 AM
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: apoptotic: Can someone explain to me how a sitting Supreme Court justice selling a book in which he lays out his opinion of laws that will impact his decision in a current case wouldn't be a conflict of interest?

wut? where is the conflict? Are you saying that he would only rule in a particular way in order to sell more books?

Justices have made their views known via scholarly work and other rulings.


I'm not sure if you were one of them, but remember the Sotomayor "conflict-of-interest" nonsense vis-a-vis the Ricci case? Cause I do. In which Sotomayor making a verbal statement at a seminar was considered adequate cause for recusal by pretty much every conservative on these boards who felt compelled to comment on it.

/Thomas' conflict is more palpable than any of the others.
//I for one, think that we will never see a SC Justice recuse themselves. Unless, maybe they are actually involved directly in the case material.
///And even then...
2012-06-18 06:03:40 PM
1 votes:

Zumaki: The Conservative push to re-write history continues.

The Roosevelts are now bad presidents,


because FDR's New Deal did nothing for unemployment, he detained citizens without trial and threatened the supreme court if they didn't advance his agenda?

Kennedy sucked,

Kennedy fortuitously announced that the key to reviving a stuck economy would be to cut taxes and return more money to the individual, allowing him to spend it in his community which would create jobs. If he wrote an editorial and it was posted on fark, it would be lambasted as some sort of right-wing, tea party racist, von-mises twaddle that would result in millions dying in the streets where the rest of us would have to flock to places like Ethiopia and Somalia for a shot at a stable government.

Reagan was the best of the 20th century, Lincoln is the best ever, etc etc.

Reagan's major flaw was the deficit, which he acknowledged in his memoirs. The job growth record of the 80s and the election of 84' pretty much shows you that it is only people under 30 who read way too much Slate that think Reagan was a lousy president.

I'm still surprised Eisenhower hasn't been dragged through the mud yet, since he taxed the shiat out of the rich.

In order to pay for a war, confiscatory tax policies are necessary. For me, neocon war hawks can die a slow death. ike was right. Every bomb you build to destroy a neighborhood somewhere else is a neighborhood that could be rebuilt at home. The GOP over the last 30 years does not get a pass on this, though neither do the democrats, to be fair.
2012-06-18 04:39:30 PM
1 votes:

patrick767: beta_plus
Payback's a biatch, libs.

Your mental deficiencies are without end.

tenpoundsofcheese
so we should punish the 5-15% who don't use health care? that makes no sense.

15% don't use it in a 1 year period. Around 5% in a five year period... how many do you suppose never get around to using much health care at all? Hint: that's going to be significantly less than 5% and there's obviously no way to know who will need it and who won't.

Never mind. I'm sure your response will be either delusional and/or utterly devoid of anything resembling compassion for those who cannot get adequate health care. Fark 'em, amiright?


Anyone who is still immune to a disease they were vaccinated against is "participating in the health care system".

You can't 'not participate in healthcare' any more than not participate in the water or air system.

The irritating part is that my higher premiums are used to cover you lazy freeriding assclowns who think some people shouldn't have to chip in.
2012-06-18 04:34:32 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: The interpretation of Wickard would allow congress to bust up a Union strike because the lack of production would affect interstate commerce.


Brilliant.
Congress should be proactive and state that any strike or union action that would impact commerce is illegal.
Commerce Clause FTW!!
2012-06-18 02:29:34 PM
1 votes:

beta_plus: Payback's a biatch, libs.

[tucsongrowup.com image 600x403]

/so suddenly criminalizing drugs is OK because all of the liberal justices are for it
//we told dumping all over the 9th & 10th amendments would come back to haunt you


Really, you're ok with millions of citizens going without healthcare and dying because of a bad property rights decision and "payback is a biatch." At some point has partisan politics maybe gone a little too far when we're ok with millions of our own suffering needless and painful deaths because we ideologically disagree with them? How far off are we, when we're this ok with the suffering of our compatriots, from just causing it ourselves?
2012-06-18 01:53:30 PM
1 votes:

dittybopper: Serious Black: tenpoundsofcheese: No HERO tag?
Come on subby.

"expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason" by deciding that "a farmer's cultivation of wheat for his own consumption affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause."

no one else here thinks that isn't over-reach?

Why did he agree with that precedent in his concurring opinion on Gonzales v. Raich?

It doesn't matter: Wickard v. Filburn basically says Congress can regulate economic activity even if it is local use, because it effects the larger economy. It doesn't say that Congress can *REQUIRE* you to engage in a certain economic activity simply by virtue of being alive. In other words, Congress can regulate activity under Wickard, but not inactivity. Under Wickard, if you want to plant wheat (or in Gonzales, marijuana), that's an economic activity and the federal government can regulate that under the very stretched and strained understanding of the Commerce Clause.

What the government *CAN'T* do is require that every person with X amount of arable property plant wheat. Even the most strained reading of Wickard doesn't allow that. And that's what PPACA is doing: Requiring everyone, whether they want to or not, to engage in an economic activity. Congress just doesn't have the authority under the Constitution to do that.

/Thinks Wickard was over-reach.
//But that's ear-elephant.


Your argument is based on the idea that non-payment for the base level of coverage mandated by hospital ER treatments does not constitute economic activity... the problem is that uninsured people cost our medical facilities (hospital ERs mostly) billions of dollars every year because these people choose not to pay, though they are inherently active within the healthcare system by virtue of being alive and covered by our minimum standards of care.
2012-06-18 01:41:44 PM
1 votes:

Stratohead: tenpoundsofcheese: No HERO tag?
Come on subby.

"expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason" by deciding that "a farmer's cultivation of wheat for his own consumption affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause."

no one else here thinks that isn't over-reach?

tell that to the war on drugs.


Exactly... to "conservatives" growing your own plants and ingesting them is a matter of interstate commerce when they don't like it, but regulating a vast network of healthcare financing, bloc grants, state insurers, and private insurers is not related to interstate commerce.
2012-06-18 01:41:19 PM
1 votes:

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.


Yeah, about that. Iowa voted out state supreme court judges because of their decision on gay marriage. That's a horrible misuse of democracy. Some judges may make political rulings sometimes but if we force them to be politicians they will all make political rulings always.
2012-06-18 01:40:26 PM
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Serious Black: tenpoundsofcheese: Serious Black: He's had 17 years to decide that Wickard v. Filburn was incorrectly decided, and he endorsed the precedent in that case at every single opportunity up till now.

No. Citing a precedent is NOT endorsing it. It is respecting stare decisis. Would you rather justices not respect precedent? Isn't that what you are arguing?

I'll wait to see what Scalia's decision regarding the individual mandate is before rendering a verdict on how he respects precedent.

apples != oranges.

Just because someone claims commerce clause, doesn't mean that it is.
you can have a precedent and also decide that the case has nothing to do with that precedent.


So how exactly does the substantial effects doctrine as spelled out in Wickard v. Filburn and affirmed in too many court cases to list here not apply to a command to purchase health insurance or pay a nominal fee?

"Cases since Wickard have minimized the significance of any particular individual's behavior yet further. They have repeatedly confirmed that the actual impact of any one individual's conduct on interstate commerce is immaterial, so long as a rational basis exists for believing that a congressional enactment, as a whole, substantially relates to interstate commerce. A single individual need not even be engaged in any economic activity-i.e. not participating in any local or interstate market-so long as the individual is engaged in some type of behavior that would undercut a broader economic regulation if left unregulated. And a single individual need not even be engaging in the harmful activity that Congress deems responsible for a national economic problem; it is enough that in general, most do. Thus, when Congress finds that organized crime harms interstate commerce, and that most loan sharks are part of organized crime, Congress can regulate even those individual loan sharks who are not part of organized crime. Similarly, it is irrelevant that an indeterminate number of healthy, uninsured persons will never consume health care, and will therefore never affect the interstate market. Broad regulation is an inherent feature of Congress's constitutional authority in this area; to regulate complex, nationwide economic problems is to necessarily deal in generalities. Congress reasonably determined that as a class, the uninsured create market failures; thus, the lack of harm attributable to any particular uninsured individual, like their lack of overt participation in a market, is of no consequence.

That a direct requirement for most Americans to purchase any product or service seems an intrusive exercise of legislative power surely explains why Congress has not used this authority before-but that seems to us a political judgment rather than a recognition of constitutional limitations. It certainly is an encroachment on individual liberty, but it is no more so than a command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race, that gravely ill individuals cannot use a substance their doctors described as the only effective palliative for excruciating pain, or that a farmer cannot grow enough wheat to support his own family. The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local-or seemingly passive-their individual origins."
2012-06-18 01:22:51 PM
1 votes:
Oh good, the check cleared.
2012-06-18 01:20:37 PM
1 votes:
Ok I can't believe I'm actually defending this, but here goes.

Unless Scalia uses some broadly different interpretation of Wickard v. Filburn today than what he used seven years ago, and only time will tell, he hasn't flip-flopped yet. Not to say he won't flip-flop, but that he hasn't yet.

There is nothing inconsistent with:

1. Privately disagreeing with a decision, and offering your reasons for it while
2. Publicly upholding the decision you disagree with as a matter of professional ethics.

Neither inhabits the same domain. A doctor might be personally for personal ethics, but bound by oath to not to assist in performing it as a matter of professional ethics. A police officer might be against marijuana criminalization off-duty, but on duty is bound to enforce the law. Etc., etc.

Similarly, the principle of charity forces me to, in this case, extend to Scalia every presumption that his arguments inhabit two separate domains, the personal and the professional, until he demonstrates otherwise, which he very well may.
2012-06-18 01:17:03 PM
1 votes:
I fervently disagree with Wickard, but like the ACA. Aside from all of that, if they overturn the Wickard precedent, there is a whole lot of confusion over what is/is not covered by the commerce clause.... there are tens of thousands of cases citing Wickard wherein the court has used the "reasonably related to interstate commerce" litmus... if that is no longer the case, then many of our laws, including the CSA, are placed in serious question.
2012-06-18 01:13:49 PM
1 votes:

tortilla burger: There's really only 2 mutually exclusive views on HCR. You either believe that everybody is inherently part of the health care system or you don't.

If you do believe that everybody is using some level of health at all times, there is no way to truly opt out because you will be treated if you get hit by a bus, regardless of whether you have health care.

If you don't believe that people are a part of the health care system at all times, then it should be a moral and legal imperative to stop treating people without health care.

We can't have it both ways, where we treat everyone while charging only some. You either charge everyone and treat everyone or charge some and treat some.


Your assumptions suck a lot. Must the "system" (we don't have one, really) be federal? What about state- and county-run options? Residents of SF and other cities have had "universal" healthcare coverage for years now.

Build yourself a decent healthcare system right where you are. Don't make me pay if it sucks. The federal government is great for defense, roads, even environmental regulations if you like. But its ability to manage certain things is embarrassing.
2012-06-18 01:13:17 PM
1 votes:

DjangoStonereaver: 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.


That was the intent, but I think it's pretty safe to say that it's failed. The theory has not held up to reality, leaving us with the unintended consequence of a highly partisan congress only putting highly partisan asshats on the bench.

We do need to remove lifetime appointments to any bench. We could do judicial reviews every 10 years to re-confirm a justice's position. That gives them time to be non-political, yet still gives us the opportunity to review what morons like Thomas have done, and dump them.
2012-06-18 01:11:32 PM
1 votes:

randomjsa: Translation: Scalia isn't buying the liberal talking point and is instead actually making a decision based on the Constitution.


Question: why did he sign onto the majority opinion that endorsed the Lopez test and issue his own concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Raich where he outright stated "Where Congress has authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective"? He's had 17 years to decide that Wickard v. Filburn was incorrectly decided, and he endorsed the precedent in that case at every single opportunity up till now.
2012-06-18 01:06:06 PM
1 votes:

timswar: I am shocked, SHOCKED that Justice Scalia would completely change his interpretation of the law based on current political beliefs.

Shocked I tell you. Just shocked.

And since Thomas is just his ventriloquist dummy we can assume feels the same as Scalia.


To be fair, Thomas has consistently held pre-Wickard views of what the Commerce Clause authorizes; see his concurrences in US v. Lopez, US v. Morrison, and Gonzales v. Raich that all condemned current interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
2012-06-18 01:02:10 PM
1 votes:
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.
2012-06-18 01:02:08 PM
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: No HERO tag?
Come on subby.

"expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason" by deciding that "a farmer's cultivation of wheat for his own consumption affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause."

no one else here thinks that isn't over-reach?


Why did he agree with that precedent in his concurring opinion on Gonzales v. Raich?
2012-06-18 01:00:32 PM
1 votes:

Guidette Frankentits: I kinda want to see Obamacare get overturned but not because I don't like it, I want to see the faces of those who decried how bad it was while simultaneously getting effed up the 'b' when they lose their health care coverage.


/vagina


They will blame Obama anyway. We are talking about people who think politics should be ceded to those people who wear the most American flags are are the most dedicated revolutionary war cosplayers.
2012-06-18 12:57:53 PM
1 votes:
I kinda want to see Obamacare get overturned but not because I don't like it, I want to see the faces of those who decried how bad it was while simultaneously getting effed up the 'b' when they lose their health care coverage.


/vagina
2012-06-18 12:48:34 PM
1 votes:
One thing is certain: Death
How we get there and how fast depends on our genetics, environment and what we do to slow it.
Health Care covers the slowing down part.
While I like the idea of freedom and not forcing people to buy something they don't want, death doesn't give a shiat.
Everyone will need health care at some point.
2012-06-18 12:18:53 PM
1 votes:
Scalia has been critical of Wickard v. Filburn since long before "Obamacare" was a sparkle in Obama's eye.
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report