[Ancesthntr]

I hope that the Supreme Court uses this opportunity to repeal that odious piece of statist trash known as “Wickard v. Filburn” and restore some of the balance between the federal government and the states/people. The very idea that ANY action taken in the stream of commerce in ANY place has an effect elsewhere, and thus justifies federal involvement in the most minute of affairs, is insulting to the concept of federalism. In effect, “Wickard v. Filburn” repealed the 10th Amendment - which is an absurd result, but an indication of how far the statist in our society will go.

PLEASE, Justices, not only should you overturn Obamacare because the individual mandate is beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government, but you should overturn “Wickard v. Filburn” - THIS is your chance!

[Uncle Ike]

Lots of Great Minds Thinking Alike on this thread... ;)

[WMarshal]

In my opinion the 10th Amendment trumps the Commerce Clause because it was a latter change to the Constitution.

[Don Corleone]

I hope that the Supreme Court uses this opportunity to repeal that odious piece of statist trash known as "Barack Obama"!

There fixed it.

[supercat]

I hope that the Supreme Court uses this opportunity to repeal that odious piece of statist trash known as “Wickard v. Filburn” and restore some of the balance between the federal government and the states/people.

More important would be a fundamental acknowledgment that, with very few exceptions, the only times precedent can ever form a legitimate basis for a court decision are either:

1. When the decision reached by the court would be entirely justifiable even if the precedent were completely ignored, and precedent is only used to select among other equally justifiable outcomes.
2. When the precedent is acknowledged as illegitimate, but someone has acted on the reasonable presumption that it was not, and the best way to minimize the harm caused by the earlier erroneous decision would be to protect those who acted in the presumption of its legitimacy while simultaneously making clear that such presumption shall no longer be considered reasonable.

In just about all other cases, precedent is either going to

1. agree with the Constitution, statutes, and other legitimate bases for decision, in which case it will be irrelevant, or
2. have been superseded by succeeding legislation or Constitutional amendment, in which case it will likewise be irrelevant, or
3. it will have been decided incorrectly, in which case it will be illegitimate.

There is no legitimate basis for the Court to act as though its decisions represent forward-going law. The fact that the Court's job is sometimes to declare what the law is, does not mean that the law becomes what the Court says. If there is a discrepancy between what the Court says and what the law says, that doesn't change the law--it simply means the Court is wrong.