Posted on 11/09/2011 10:12:43 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat
|
Silberman, Laurence Hirsch
|
According to Rush, this Judge is as conservative as they come.
We are so screwed as a nation.
This decision REALLY FORCES the Supremes to git back to Wickard v. Filburn, 1942. That’s interesting.
IOW if the Court rules against Obamacare, it would strike that hyper-expansion of the Commerce Clause.
Such pretty language for "The state can do whatever the state says is good for you"
And, no... it can't
Scalia LOVES Wickard v Filburn.
It is the only thing that allows a federal War on Drugs without a prohibition amendment.
He would never undermine it.
It is a Left-Religious Right collaboration.
Judge Silberman’s decision shows how all arguments against Obamacare labor under the overweening burden of 70 year old Supreme Court interpretations of the interstate commerce clause like Wickard which expanded the reach of federal power far beyond any original understanding of the scope of that clause. Until this fundamental distortion of the Constitution is addressed, leftists will always find other ways to expand federal power over healthcare and every other aspect of our national life even if one aspect of Obamacare (the individual mandate) is ultimately overturned in the Supreme Court.
How do we restore those original meanings today after the original text has been so distorted and abused by the Supreme Court? Even supposedly “conservative” Congresses and Supreme Courts have failed to do much to roll back the vast unconstitutional expansion of the national government. We can not rely on politicians or judges to do it voluntarily. Rather, we need to amend the Constitution to restate those original meanings. By overturning all those decades of abuse by the Supreme Court, and putting clearly stated limits on Congress and the President which reflect the original constitutional allocation of powers in language which can not be misconstrued, will assure not only the end of Obamacare, but every other federal overreach. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com.
“The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems”
There are so many problems with this. “The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute...” try “Congress shall make no law...” for starters, although not ‘universal’ for all laws the Bill of Rights certainly does say people have some ABSOLUTE freedoms from federal regulation. “yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems” - this is complete sophistry, of course Congress is to deal with national problems - all within the restraints put on it. This man has a lifetime of dealing with logic and law, his statement is a contrivance of false reasoning and he had to know it.
Creating a thread for it right now. Education.
What exactly does ObamaCare have to do with commerce or even lack thereof?
This opinion seems so far out of character for him that these ugly possibilities have to be raised.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.