How do Scalia and Kennedy justify this

Posted by Sir Four at 2:09pm Jun 28 '12
You must sign in to send Sir Four a message
In 2005, Gonzales v. Raich was a case before the court in which the government argued it had the power to go into someone's home and destroy their medical marijuana plants that they had been using under the care of a doctor (legal in California). The government stated that it could do this due to its power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause. We all might find it laughable that a person growing several plants privately in their home has anything to do with interstate commerce, but Scalia and Kennedy sided with the majority that the government does have this power.

Of course, Scalia and Kennedy have now stated their opinion that the government does not have such power to regulate health insurance.

Hilariously, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her just-released written opinion on Obamacare, defended the use of the Commerce Clause to regulate health insurance by citing Scalia's exact words from the Gonzales v. Raich decision, in which he argued for it.

So... Scalia and Kennedy are just naked partisans, aren't they? How do you rule absurdly favorably for government power under the Commerce Clause for the Bush administration, yet declare that health care reform is so beyond the pale that it is "invalid in its entirety"?

Fucking Kennedy, man. That guy has turned out to be a massive turd in recent years. Scalia, I expect this from.
There are 67 private posts in this thread. You need to sign in to read them.

Below are the public posts you may view:

You currently have read-only access to this board. You must request an account to join the conversation.

Why Join 4thKingdom?

Note that there are no ads here. Just intelligent and friendly conversation. We keep the spam out, the trolls out, the advertisers out… 4K is just a low-key, old-fashioned site with members from around the world.
This community began in 1998, and we continue to accept new members today.

Hot Discussion Topics: