You're confusing what your opinion is they have done, with intent and purpose. In the 200+ years yes the SCOTUS has sometimes given deference... however my point is that is NOT their purpose - not then, not now. It's very clear why the framers created the 3 distinct sections of government. On a side note, pretty much anything can be "rationalized"...
He was a professor of constitutional law at a top-five law school. That qualifies him as an expert.
Did I say that it was unanimous? No.
How renowned is your expert? An associate professor at George Mason School of Law? :doh
A regular writer at "The Volohk Conspiracy"? "The Volokh Conspiracy is a blog which mostly covers United States legal and political issues, generally from a libertarian or conservative perspective." :doh
Okay. Now address Amar, Tribe, and Chemerinsky, who are, I think most legal scholars would concede, the top three, or at least among the top five constitutional law scholars in the country. And Fried -- Reagan's Solicitor General.
Apparently it only applies when its a decision that conservatives don't like. They get very prickly when the tables are turned on them.
Perhaps Obama should take a lesson from Chemerinsky concerning complaints about the court acting on Judicial Activism.
"Judicial activism is the label for the decision that people don't like."
Or does that quote only apply when its a decision HE doesn't like? (And that Obama doesn't like)
And I think they may have occasionally behaved that way in 200+ yet that doesn't define their purpose, intent or function.I'm not confusing anything. I'm just telling you how the Court has behaved over the course of its history.
Okay, I thought he was talking about the mandate case that was decided under the commerce clause. What were you talking about?
He's a Constitutional scholar and like many of them he doesn't believe the bill is unconstitutional. He has a right to his opinions.
Could you please provide this comprehensive list of top constitutional scholars? I don't deny all three, one of which in regards to Tribe is regarded as one of the top "liberal" constitutional experts and was a consultant for Obama's Justice Administration, are well respected opinions. That said, you've chosen at least two, if not three, Constitutional Scholars who are known to historically lean, with regards to the constitution, in a similar way that Ginsberg and Breyer lean. What you're essentially attempting to do is handpick the experts of your choosing to attempt to validate only one view point of constitutional philosophy as being valid.
Randy Barnett of Georgetown Law stated before the Judiciary committee that "the Commerce Power has never been construed to include the power to mandate that persons must engage in economic activity". I find it interesting you immedietely discount Rivkin and Casey because they represent the plantiff, but have no issue quoting a person whose been on the payroll of the Obama Administration as a fair and objective individual. One of the people in your own links, James Blumstein, even suggest that the notion of its constitutionality only exists "given the expansion of federal power since 1937", which inherently suggests that it's simply due to precedent rather than any inherent constitutional notion that it should not be overturned. However, throughout America's history there's been examples, some lauded by Liberals (and some by both sides), where the Courts disregarded precedent for their own interpritation of the Constitution and those acts are not viewed as unconstitutional or judicial activism or "wrong".
You further discount the fact that while those you've named are legal experts, they are no more legal experts than those sitting on the Supreme Court and they are no more or less impartial because they're professors rather than judges. Furthermore, it puts all your stock in judging the constitutionality of this on legal experts, specifically in your case legal experts with a noted lean in terms of their style of constitutional interpritation, while ignoring that there are a plethora of legal experts throughout the country who have taken up the mantle of Judges rather than deciding to enter into acadamia. A group, by and large, that remains silent on such a thing. The notion that one can accuratley and fairly designate what the majority of legal expert or scholar's believes is a misguided one based on this notion. Perhaps a judgement can be made regarding the majority of legal professors, but those are hardly the only experts on the issue in this country.
Finally, I'll point out your baseline fallacy with appealing to authority. Not only are you proclaiming you're correct because some experts, hand picked by you and deemed the "top" in the country by you, happen to agree but you do so by discounting the experts sitting on the court that disagree with you, the experts making the arguments that are disagreeing with you, and other experts that have spoken out that disagree not to mention those that can't or choose not to speak out. So your argument that you're correct is generally based on a foundation of nothing but your own hand selected experts as some kind of unquestionable truth. It is not.
He was a professor of constitutional law at a top-five law school. That qualifies him as an expert.
No. He was a "lecturer". And often on leave from teaching.
Really? Because Obama's stated that if this is overturned its an example of Judicial Activism yet gets prickly and bitchy when it goes the other way....seems like it doesn't only apply to decisions conservatives don't like.
Actually, Obama and yourself are highlighting the very thing your prized professor was whining about. You bitch and whine and moan when people use the term "judicial activism" when its against a case you like, but when a case goes the way you dislike Obama and seemingly yourself have no issue using it.
Seems to me that for you and Obama it definitely is a label for the decision that you don't like.
Excuse me if I refuse to engage in your and the President's sad and pathetic little game of "two wrongs make a right".
As the law school has said, they consider a senior lecturer to be a professor.
This is why I hope you're being paid to say these things. You know damn well his statement that no law passed by a strong majority of Congress has been overturned wasn't limited to any clause.
If you're not being paid, why are you so motivated to carry his water all the way into hell? The contortions and twists you come up with to try to "explain" what he "really meant" are Olympic-caliber.
I agree that's what his words literally said. I thing I've said that before. My point is that I don't think that's what he meant, and he has since clarified what he meant.
But not his own facts, like "strong majority" and "unprecedented."
Yes, in a way which does not at ALL suggest what YOU say he meant ("commerce clause case law").
So, I ask again, why do you carry his water so faithfully? You even appear to the be last one here with a bucket.
We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on an economic issue like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned, at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going to back to the ‘30s, pre-New Deal. And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it. But it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly-elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.
Now, as I said, I expect -- I expect the Supreme Court actually to -- to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedents out there. I have enormous confidence that, in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has.
As a consequence, we’re not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies. What I did emphasize yesterday is, there is a human element to this that everybody has to remember. This is not an abstract exercise.
A supermajority in the Senate is pretty strong. The House vote -- not so much.
If the Court was to invalidate a law that, as here, clearly regulates interstate commerce, it would indeed be unprecedented.
Actually in a way that is EXACTLY what I said he meant.
Maybe you missed it?
A supermajority in the Senate is pretty strong. The House vote -- not so much. If the Court was to invalidate a law that, as here, clearly regulates interstate commerce, it would indeed be unprecedented.
He said a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress. 18 votes out of 535 is no one's definition of "strong." Quite a few liberal commentators have conceded this; why can't you?
Nope, United States v. Lopez. Funny, proponents there said it "clearly" regulated commerce, too.
LOL ..... there is nothing strong in a vote that is along party lines. Nothing. In fact, that makes it weak.
This is one logic fallacy after another. Or deliberate BS. :doh
A supermajority in the Senate is pretty strong. The House vote -- not so much. If the Court was to invalidate a law that, as here, clearly regulates interstate commerce, it would indeed be unprecedented.
So you seem to be proclaiming you're correct based on ... what? The opinion of the counsel representing your side? The questions of the judges? Strong argument.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?