Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

babylonsister

(171,065 posts)
Mon Jun 18, 2012, 05:27 PM Jun 2012

Scalia's 'intellect and integrity'

Posted with permission.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/18/12283151-scalias-intellect-and-integrity?lite

Scalia's 'intellect and integrity'
By Steve Benen
-
Mon Jun 18, 2012 1:50 PM EDT


While we wait for the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act, there's increasing speculation about how Justice Antonin Scalia will rule. The answer now appears rather obvious, with the far-right jurist starting to show his cards.

Before we get to that, though, consider a little history. I often think about this op-ed Harvard Law scholar Laurence Tribe wrote last year, arguing that proponents of the law have nothing to fear -- of course a high court majority will uphold the law, because it's such a "clear" and "open and shut" case. Tribe practically chided folks like me for questioning whether conservative justices would be responsible in this case -- Scalia may be conservative, but to think he'd ignore the law is "to insult both his intellect and his integrity."

A year later, as Sahil Kapur reports, Scalia's intellect and integrity are looking a lot shakier.



Now, within days of the historic ruling, Scalia is releasing a new book in which he finds fault with a Roosevelt-era Supreme Court decision that forms a critical part of the legal undergirding for the health care reform law. For Scalia, that's a dramatic turnaround, because he has previously embraced the premise of that decision in an opinion he authored in 2005 that supporters of the health care law have frequently cited.

In Scalia's new book, a 500-page disquisition on statutory construction being published this week, he says the landmark 1942 ruling Wickard v. Filburn -- which has served as the lynchpin of the federal government's broad authority to regulate interstate economic activities under the Constitution's Commerce Clause -- was improperly decided.

According to an advance review in the New York Times, Scalia writes that Wickard "expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason" by deciding that "a farmer's cultivation of wheat for his own consumption affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause."


When did Scalia reach this conclusion? Well, quite recently, actually. Indeed, the far-right justice seemed to change his mind about the Commerce Clause right around the time he was looking for a way to rule against the health care law.

Scalia himself cited Wickard in his 2005 opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, concurring with a 6-3 majority that said Congress may, under the Commerce Clause, prohibit a licensed medical marijuana patient from growing pot in his or her backyard even if it's legal in the state. A central foundation for that sweeping federal power, the winning side argued, flowed from Wickard.

At the time, Scalia emphatically agreed, writing in his concurring opinion that "where Congress has authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective."

And how does Scalia explain the shift? In his book, he now claims "wisdom has come late."

I see. So, Antonin Scalia waited until he was 76 years old, and had been a justice on the high court for more than a quarter of a century, and then he decided his perspective, rulings, and understanding of the Commerce Clause were all wrong -- just in time to rule against a Democratic health care law that features a Republican idea that was assumed by everyone to be entirely constitutional.


I hope Prof. Tribe will forgive me if I feel inclined to insult both Scalia's intellect and his integrity.

14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

JHB

(37,160 posts)
14. I think he just mispronounced "chance to really screw those left-wing bastards"...
Tue Jun 19, 2012, 07:04 AM
Jun 2012

...because if you substitute that for "wisdom" it makes complete sense coming from him.

elleng

(130,908 posts)
2. OK, but this gives us a leg-up on medical marijuana???
Mon Jun 18, 2012, 05:36 PM
Jun 2012


Will be interesting, if he tries to do this, what the other members of the Court will do. Wickard's a pretty well-used and relied upon doctrine.

bluesbassman

(19,373 posts)
10. The Felonious Five should take a page from NASCAR and be done with it.
Mon Jun 18, 2012, 09:58 PM
Jun 2012

No offense intended to either NASCAR or it's fans, but plenty of offense intended for Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy.


bleever

(20,616 posts)
11. I think Professor Tribe owes US an apology.
Mon Jun 18, 2012, 11:55 PM
Jun 2012

I certainly respect him, and hope and expect he will acknowledge his error.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
12. Scalia is a phony. I can say that at this point in my life. He is a phony.
Tue Jun 19, 2012, 05:42 AM
Jun 2012

He pretends not to want to quote legislative history and then quotes parts of case law that relies on legislative history, quoting that history. He is a phony.

 

cbrer

(1,831 posts)
13. And a destructive one at that
Tue Jun 19, 2012, 06:44 AM
Jun 2012

This judgement could affect generations to come, and push back the health care legislative gains past any foreseeable future.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Scalia's 'intellect and i...