PDA

View Full Version : Important ally if RP becomes president




Zydeco
07-01-2007, 12:43 PM
I've been reading up on SCOTUS chief justice John Roberts, and found this interesting Roberts quote on wikipedia:

"Starting with McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall gave a very broad and expansive reading to the powers of the Federal Government and explained that...if the ends be legitimate, then any means chosen to achieve them are within the power of the Federal Government, and cases interpreting that, throughout the years, have come down. Certainly, by the time Lopez was decided, many of us had learned in law school that it was just sort of a formality to say that interstate commerce was affected and that cases weren't going to be thrown out that way. Lopez certainly breathed new life into the Commerce Clause...I think it remains to be seen, in subsequent decisions, how rigorous a showing...it is...It's not a question of an abstract fact, does this affect interstate commerce or not, but has this body, the Congress, demonstrated the impact on interstate commerce that drove them to legislate? That's a very important factor. It wasn't present in Lopez at all. I think the members of Congress had heard the same thing I had heard in law school, that this is unimportant—and they hadn't gone through the process of establishing a record in that case." (emphasis added)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts#Jurisprudence

So if RP wins, two of the three branches of the FedGov will be headed by men who are, shall we say, highly skeptical of the currently mainstream legal interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This broad interpretation has led directly to our oversized federal government, and reinterpretation would be a major first step to real reduction.

Huge.

csen
07-01-2007, 02:25 PM
I have to say, I've been pretty impressed with the Roberts court so far. Striking down affirmative action is completely in line with RP's position, as well as striking down the law that retailers can violate MSRP's set by producers.

ButchHowdy
07-01-2007, 02:53 PM
And let's not forget the May 2007 Ledbetter v Goodyear case where a woman store manager tried to sue Goodyear over equal pay to a man, but after the 180 day contractual dispute period.

The Supreme Court upheld the contract in favor of Goodyear.

Imagine . . . contracts are back in fashion!

beermotor
07-01-2007, 03:01 PM
I've been reading up on SCOTUS chief justice John Roberts, and found this interesting Roberts quote on wikipedia:

"Starting with McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall gave a very broad and expansive reading to the powers of the Federal Government and explained that...if the ends be legitimate, then any means chosen to achieve them are within the power of the Federal Government, and cases interpreting that, throughout the years, have come down. Certainly, by the time Lopez was decided, many of us had learned in law school that it was just sort of a formality to say that interstate commerce was affected and that cases weren't going to be thrown out that way. Lopez certainly breathed new life into the Commerce Clause...I think it remains to be seen, in subsequent decisions, how rigorous a showing...it is...It's not a question of an abstract fact, does this affect interstate commerce or not, but has this body, the Congress, demonstrated the impact on interstate commerce that drove them to legislate? That's a very important factor. It wasn't present in Lopez at all. I think the members of Congress had heard the same thing I had heard in law school, that this is unimportant—and they hadn't gone through the process of establishing a record in that case." (emphasis added)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts#Jurisprudence

So if RP wins, two of the three branches of the FedGov will be headed by men who are, shall we say, highly skeptical of the currently mainstream legal interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This broad interpretation has led directly to our oversized federal government, and reinterpretation would be a major first step to real reduction.

Huge.



Uh, hold on a second. He's just saying, had they developed a record of how/why this affected interstate commerce, then things would have been fine in Lopez (a case about regulating firearms sales near schools, IIRC). I think Lopez came up with a wacky 3 tiered test (go go gadget Rehnquist, a more trusty obfuscator I cannot think of save the "liberal wing" and Scalia, for different reasons obviously).

beermotor
07-01-2007, 03:02 PM
And let's not forget the May 2007 Ledbetter v Goodyear case where a woman store manager tried to sue Goodyear over equal pay to a man, but after the 180 day contractual dispute period.

The Supreme Court upheld the contract in favor of Goodyear.

Imagine . . . contracts are back in fashion!


Yeah, we need Lochner and we need to dump everything since then.

THOMAS, not Roberts, is the guy for that. He is the only one with any sense, his dissents are always to the point and right on.