Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Still Thinking

You may be correct. As I wrote to someone else Clarence Thomas, in his dissent to Gonzales v. Raich, seems willing to dramatically limit the congress’ power to use the commerce clause.


134 posted on 05/05/2009 1:10:10 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]


To: Straight Vermonter

I’ve always secretly wanted to replace everybody from Scalia to Stevens with eight Thomas clones.


135 posted on 05/05/2009 1:11:19 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]

To: Straight Vermonter
As I wrote to someone else Clarence Thomas, in his dissent to Gonzales v. Raich, seems willing to dramatically limit the congress’ power to use the commerce clause.

He did, but he couldn't get Scalia to go along with him. (His dissent was joined only by Rehnquist and O'Connor, neither of whom is on the Court anymore).

142 posted on 05/05/2009 1:16:50 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson