[tberry]

"world war and Cold War, proving that, in government, there's nothing quite so permanent as the temporary."

Beware all of those "temporary" restrictions on our liberty. Once they are instituted they will not go away.

[tenderstone jr.]

Scalia and Thomas are definitely not afraid, and have no problem saying decisions like Roe v. Wade were wrong. I think the author is describing perfectly O'Connor and Kennedy, who both know the court has made mistakes in the past, but who are both unwilling to correct them because of the potential backlash.

[Maelstrom]

Told ya' so.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Interesting to see that one who admits no ability in or understanding of legal reasoning feels someone should care about his blovating on such significant legal issues.

Of course, he will find a ready audience here among those similiarly gifted.

[Brian Allen]

Thank you. A keeper.

[AKbear]

Good article. Bump!

[Blood of Tyrants]

Most are terribly afraid of having to rely on the Constitution for guidance rather than some previous incorrect ruling, i.e. the non-existant "seperation of church and state".

[Eva]

I have a slightly different view of the power struggle between the Congress and the courts. I think that there is no struggle. The legislators have willing ceded their power to make clear laws to the courts, because our congressmen do not trust the public to know what is best for them. They fear a political backlash if they support a politically controversial stand. So, they allow the courts to legislate from the bench, to attempt to determine the intent of the law, which should have been made clear in the first place, or be rewritten.

[general_re]

And third, the federal government found a dandy all-purpose justification for its own expansion in the Constitution's "interstate commerce" clause, which gives the feds the "right" to deal with items that "substantially affect" interstate trade. Whether the Founders ever intended the clause to be used to support federal mandates of "gun-free school zones" or the prevention of violence against women may be debated.

By and large, the guy's right, but he doesn't help his argument by picking two examples where SCOTUS actually stepped in and limited Congressional power under the Commerce Clause - the guns in school zones law was struck down in US v. Lopez, and the portions of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 that relied on the Commerce Clause were struck down in US v. Morrison.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Whether the Founders ever intended the clause to be used to support federal mandates of "gun-free school zones" or the prevention of violence against women may be debated.

Both the Gun-Free School Act and the Violence Against Women Act were held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, contradicting his argument that the Court is abetting the end of federalism.

[ihatemyalarmclock]

One of the best articles I've seen on this or any similar topic. Kudos to Mr. Gold. Outstanding.