And While I’m on the Subject…

While the Supreme Court is in a mood to end what they see as “judicial overreach”, why don’t they take a care that will allow them to reverse Wickard v. Filburn? This article by Jacob Sullum at Reason.com explains why.

11 comments… add one
  • TastyBits Link

    That is simply how the Supreme Court has chosen to interpret the Commerce Clause. Obviously, it could have been interpreted that way long before, and it could stop today.

    Actually, this interpretation should supercede most, if not all of the Constitution.

  • steve Link

    “While the Supreme Court is in a mood to end what they see as “judicial overreach”,

    In all seriousness, was this intended to be funny? This court is as guilty of overreach as any we have ever had, plus either stupidity or outright corruption. How can you possibly justify claiming it is OK to give people thousands of dollars in gratuities but not bribes?

    Steve

  • Drew Link

    Poor Steve –

    Boo-hoo. The court is doing the opposite of overreach. It’s strict interpretation.

    You, and all on the left were so used to activism that your heads are spinning.

    Elections have consequences. Find someone other than a doddering old man.

    And then the juvenile bribes meme. Grow up.

  • walt moffett Link

    It is within the power of the Congress to limit cases the Courts can hear and within its power to pass laws that reverse the decision. However, that requires winning votes from voters that have been written off.

  • PD Shaw Link

    @steve, all Congress needs to do is pass a gratuity law against state and local office holders like it has against federal office holders.

    There was a circuit split on whether Section 666 criminalized gratuities going back to a 1st Circuit decision in 2013. That decision was made a panel of three judges, appointed by Bush I, Clinton and Obama.

  • steve Link

    Claiming you are an originalist and then selecting the version of history you want to believe while ignoring large bodies of historical fact allows you to be an activist as much as anyone else. It’s not just coincidence they keep finding history to support what they want to do anyway.

    Guess you have two support the gratuity decision since it makes it easier to justify keeping your current SCOTUS members who have accepted lots of gratuities. From friends of course.

    Steve

  • Drew Link

    LOL

    Boo-hoo, Steve.

  • PD Shaw Link

    _Snyder_ was a textualist decision, not an originalist.

    SCOTUS justices are not state or local officers and aren’t effected by this decision in any way.

  • steve Link

    PD- That’s even worse. You get to swing back and forth between textualism and originalism to find ways to support the outcome you already want. An originalist interpretation, meaning what Congress intended when the law was written, would not allow gratuities of the size they declared legal.

    Steve

  • PD Shaw Link

    The law the Court was interpreting was passed in 1986, usually people don’t describe interpreting recent statutes as originalism. The originalists on this Court are interested in the “original public meaning” of the text. If the law is recent, the circumstances and language do not require extrinsic sources to determine what the words and phrases mean.

    The “original public meaning” is not the same thing as what “Congress intended.” When people say what Congress intended they are usually projecting what they think Congress would have intended if they were Congress.

  • Grey Shamblet Link

    Well, I’ll admit It lost me.
    But, in the immortal words of Jimmy Hoffa. THATS BULLSHIT!!!

Leave a Comment