Seems a bit disingenuous on your part to quote Justice Thomas admonishing Congress but leaving out his criticism of the same actions by his own USSC. Given that he's criticized both, I'm simply asking the point of your post #190.
Here was your first question to me about my point:
Is this Clarence Thomas Appreciation Week, or does your post have a point?
Post Reply | Private Reply | *To 249*
Since you did not specify otherwise, I took it as refering to #249, since #249 was the post you were replying to. How illogical of me.
Seems a bit disingenuous on your part to quote Justice Thomas admonishing Congress but leaving out his criticism of the same actions by his own USSC.
You're the one who said you were sure Justice Thomas had no problem funding judicial activism.
You failed to point out Justice Thomas' criticism of judicial activism in a prior case which you yourself cited. Now, who was being disingenuous?
Given that he's criticized both, I'm simply asking the point of your post #190.
My point in #190 should have been obvious, but I'll repeat it:
"The gun grabbers will use hook or crook to get around the Second Amendment." That was the point.
To quote from Justice Thomas in Printz:
In my "revisionist" view, see post, at 3, the Federal Government's authority under the Commerce Clause, which merely allocates to Congress the power "to regulate Commerce . . . among the several states," does not extend to the regulation of wholly intrastate, point of sale transactions. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 584 (1995) (concurring opinion).
Lopez, if you'll recall, was the case in which Justice Thomas wrote so eloquently about the error of the substantial effects doctrine.
I'll be glad to post some of his well thought out opinion from the case. You have but to ask.