District of Corruption
George Will writes:
“By persuading the Court to reject a Commerce Clause rationale for a president’s signature act, the conservative legal insurgency against Obamacare has won a huge victory for the long haul. This victory will help revive a venerable tradition of America’s political culture, that of viewing congressional actions with a skeptical constitutional squint, searching for congruence with the Constitution’s architecture of enumerated powers. By rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale, Thursday’s decision reaffirmed the Constitution’s foundational premise: Enumerated powers are necessarily limited because, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, “the enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.”
Scalia, Thomas, Alito and even Kennedy didn’t see it that way, but I suppose the Arizona decision in which Roberts gutted SB 1070 is further proof that the situation is really not as bad as it seems.
Does anyone here remember the time that Sandra Day O’Connor signed off on affirmative action for a generation and the media threw laurels at her feet? That’s what happened again this morning.
Note: The funniest reaction column that I have read so far argued that the Supreme Court has affirmative action coming up in its next term and this decision will pave the way to its defeat. Because the votes “look like they are there.”
Yeah, the government can force you to buy health insurance, and it can force the states to submit to a foreign invasion, and it can have your child bused to an integrated public school, and it can get involved in marriage and abortion, but we really still have a constitutional government of “enumerated powers.”
This is a huge victory for “conservatism.”