October 7, 2010

Justice Scalia upholds health care reform bill

But DE Senate candidate still opposed to "individual man date"
[In Gonzalez v.] Raich, the Supreme Court sustained Congress's power to impose obligations on individuals who claimed not to participate in interstate commerce, because those obligations were components of broad schemes regulating interstate commerce.
Translation: Just because you claim not to participate in interstate commerce doesn't mean that you don't, according to Scalia/Raich.

Thomas More Law Center v. Obama (.pdf; 20 pgs.)


sofa said...

Silly activist judge...

By this ruling every action or inaction would fall under the control of fed.gov. Or do we call it 'Big Brother' now?

"All laws repugnant to the Constitution are Null and Void".

This embarassing and willful activism by a judge will be overturned.

Or - There is no Constitution, and the enumerated powers get renegotiated again, for clarity sake.

illusory tenant said...

It's not activism. Quite the opposite. From a district court's perspective, the prior holdings of the Supreme Court take precedent over how you or I (or the district court judge, for that matter) might read the Constitution on its face, and never mind what any life-appointed black-robed elites have had to say about it in the meantime.

That is, even if those Supreme Court holdings are wrong, the district court still has to follow them (although it could also be said that the district court was following the holdings wrong, which will likely be the eventual disposition in this case).