WSJ: Kennedy on Roberts - The Supreme Court nominee is a threat to Medicare. /sarcasm

Wall Street Journal ^ | July 25, 2005 | Editorial

[OESY]

In his two years on the appeals bench, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has authored about 40 opinions, but it's a one-and-a-half page dissent that has Ted Kennedy fulminating. The Senator from Massachusetts is outraged about a Commerce Clause case called Rancho Viejo v. Norton, which, in the Kennedy legal interpretation, threatens "Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage" and the environment. Is that all?

In Rancho Viejo, a real-estate company challenged the Interior Department's application of the Endangered Species Act to halt a project that might disturb an endangered species known as the arroyo Southwestern toad, whose picture we publish nearby. At issue was Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce -- in this case, the movement of the toad, which, as Judge Roberts pointed out, is entirely intrastate. The toad is a homebody; it does not travel out of California.

It's a long hop from the arroyo toad to Social Security or the minimum wage, and we confess to some difficulty in following Senator Kennedy's line of reasoning. Nor do we agree that the interpretation of the Commerce Clause is "settled," as he asserts. If anything, the Supreme Court confused matters in the past term....

Also worth noting is that Judge Roberts's four-paragraph dissent was not a full-fledged opinion on the merits of Rancho Viejo; he was merely disagreeing with the majority's decision to deny a review of the case by the full court. This makes Mr. Kennedy's denunciation of the "sweeping implications" of Judge Roberts's words even more dishonest.

One final quote from Mr. Kennedy on Judge Roberts: "I can imagine few things worse for our seniors, for the disabled, for workers and for families than to place someone on the highest court in the land who would put these protections at risk."....

[goldstategop]

Uncle Ted would be upset by any ruling that threatened Big Government. Its as sacred and untouchable as the Bible. How dare John Roberts even question why we need it!

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Put your neckbrace back on and shut up, Ted.

[topher]

I think Senator Kennedy is afraid of turning into a toad, and being on the endangered species list...

[gridlock]

Teddy Kennedy is right. But even a blind squirrel finds an acorn, now and then.

Ted Kennedy knows full well that it was his brother, Robert Kennedy, who as Attorney General first applied the Commerce Clause to allow the Federal Government to regulate whatever it liked. The authority to ban segregation in public accommodations was based on the Commerce Clause. This authority under the Commerce Clause was then used for just about every major piece of legislation that accreted additional authority to the Federal Government. Remove this authority, and the whole house of cards tumbles.

The difference between him and me is that I want to see the house of cards fall, and he does not.

[Joe Boucher]

Thanks a lot Mass. you bunch of putzes for saddleing us with this turd killer for how many decades?

[gridlock]

Thanks a lot Mass. you bunch of putzes for saddleing us with this turd killer for how many decades?

What do you have against Mary Jo Kopechne? She may have exercised poor judgment by getting into a car with a Kennedy, but I see no reason to insult her posthumously.

[COBOL2Java]

Separated at birth?

The Arroyo Southwestern Toad

Ted Kennedy

[Always Right]

It sounds like Judge Roberts is going to force old ladies to eat dog food.

[buffyt]

And Swimmer Uncle Teddy is a threat to Mary Jo Kapeckne!

[Jibaholic]

I think Teddy is right on target. The Interstate Commerce Clause has been the (flimsy) justification for all manner of Big Government intrusions into our daily life. To paraphrase Clarence Thomas, if the government can send armed men into your home to arrest your for growing something for your own personal use on the grounds that they are regulating interstate commerce, then there is no limit on federal power.

That is what precisely what Teddy and his comrades-in-arms want: unlimted federal power.

[EagleUSA]

I can just see it now -- Old Gin-Bottle will be standing up, yelling how Roberts will put old people in the streets, starving them, and will KILL SOCIAL SECURITY!!!!

Yes, the very thought of threatening Socialism, why Kennedy will just not have it!!!

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Pay no mind to "Jabba the Swimmer". He is just on another one of his Jim Beam diets.

[sr4402]

You say unhinged, Unhinged?, (hic). I can say whatever I want, you don't have the right to challenge me. I'm a privileged American.

/Sarcasm OFF

[dirtboy]

It's a long hop from the arroyo toad to Social Security or the minimum wage,

Not really. It's a simple step - to a position that words have specific meaning, not judicially-devined variations.

And Teddy understands that, as do many liberals. That is why you didn't see them complaining when SCOTUS ruled 6-3 in Gonzales v. Raich - they knew what was at stake, namely the perpetuation of usurped federal powers.

[Tulane]

Incorrect...the apllication of the "plenary" commerce clause has its origins in the 1930's with FDR's new deal.

[gridlock]

Incorrect...the apllication of the "plenary" commerce clause has its origins in the 1930's with FDR's new deal.

True. But one could make the argument that the New Deal was at least related to interstate commerce. Robert Kennedy's great innovation was to apply it to situations that were neither commercial nor interstate, greatly expanding the power.

[jigsaw]

I can imagine few things worse for our seniors, for the
disabled, for workers and for families than to place someone
on the highest court in the land who would put these
protections at risk.

I can imagine few things worse for our seniors, for the
disabled, for workers and for families than to place someone
in your Oldsmobile.

Teddy, may you eventually find yourself in Hell eternally drowning.

[gridlock]

I can imagine few things worse for our seniors, for the disabled, for workers and for families than to place someone on the highest court in the land who would put these protections at risk.

Completely absent in this argument is whether or not these things are legal. "They are good, therefore they must be legal", is the argument. But if that is to be the standard, then there is nothing to protect the people from whatever "good" idea might come down the pike next.

[KarlInOhio]

If you squeeze the first one you get the mind altering chemicals 5-MeO-DMT, N-methyl-5-methoxytryptamine, 5-MeO-NMT and Bufotenine. If you squeeze the second the only mind altering chemical you get is C₂H₅OH.