What does that mean? Is Scalia saying the Supremes may fold in with the Administration? Or what?
I think he was trying to tell our guy that the Congress needs to grow a pair and start legislating. Quit laying every thing off on the judiciary because they don’t have the guts to do their job. And actually Scalia is right.
I think it means they’re going to go strict word-by-word constitutionalist on King v Whatserface. No more extending ‘this is what we *think* you were TRYING to say in this law’.
I take it as a wonderful omen. Did you know Cruz declared today he’s signing up he and his family for Zerocare?
<>What does that mean?<>
It has nothing to do with congress “growing a pair.”
It means Scotus was never designed to protect state interests. Only the states themselves can do that. Only through the Framers’ design of the senate can they defeat horrid, anti-10th Amendment congressional bills before they become law. The Framers did not expect federalism to be protected by Scotus, but rather by constitutional structure. It was the interplay between the people and states in congress that was supposed to determine the limits of federal and state powers, not Scotus.
Scotus is institutionally and temperamentally incapable of serving as a substitute for the states in congress.
It is long past time to correct a mistake, the 17th Amendment. Since congress will never voluntarily relinquish power, it is up to us to reestablish freedom saving federalism.
Article V. There is no substitute.