Replies

Hank Rearden wrote:

And many/most FReepers can't wait to see Scalia as Chief Justice.

God help us. The Supreme Court sure as hell won't.

_____________________________________

Thomas v. Scalia in GONZALES v. RAICH et al.
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417693/posts

Posted by P_A_I to Ken H; yall
On News/Activism ^ 06/07/2005 1:00:25 PM PDT · 127 of 156 ^

Scalia's other statement:

"That simple possession is a noneconomic activity is immaterial to whether it can be prohibited as a necessary part of a larger regulation.
Rather, Congress's authority to enact all of these prohibitions of intrastate controlled-substance activities depends only upon whether they are appropriate means of achieving the legitimate end of eradicating Schedule I substances from interstate commerce."

______________________________________

Scalia is simply reiterating that it is [in his mistaken opinion] constitutionally legitimate to eradicate "Schedule I substances from interstate commerce."
P_A_I

______________________________________

It sounds like he is simply saying that he believes that I.8.3 delegates such a power in Raich.

But on what basis?

Substantial effects? It does sound like an endorsement of Wickard.
122 Ken

He has no 'basis'.. To him it's just an "unquestionable" power.

As Scalia once wrote in Barnes v. Glen:

"Our society prohibits, and all human societies have prohibited, certain activities not because they harm others but because they are considered, in the traditional phrase, 'contra bonos mores,' i.e., immoral.
In American society, such prohibitions have included, for example, sadomasochism, cockfighting, bestiality, suicide, drug use, prostitution, and sodomy."

To Scalia, prohibiting "drug use" is an unquestionable moral power of all societies.

And we supposedly want more like him on our supreme court, with him as chief justice?

Lord help us all.

"Our society prohibits, and all human societies have prohibited, certain activities not because they harm others but because they are considered, in the traditional phrase, 'contra bonos mores,' i.e., immoral. In American society, such prohibitions have included, for example, sadomasochism, cockfighting, bestiality, suicide, drug use, prostitution, and sodomy."

For a smart man, Scalia sure missed the irony of listing a bunch of state and local crimes as examples.

Many "conservatives" walk a fine line on the other side of which is totalitarianism.

"The people demand a strong ruler" - that kind of crap.

Our government was constituted to secure the individual liberties of a free, self-governing people. What the hell is so wrong or hard to understand about that? And why are "conservatives" so afraid of the concept?