Interesting as far as it goes, but one question that isn’t considered is how the liberal justices would deal with a national abortion ban. If memory serves, the court’s liberals are surefire votes for finding that a given law is an appropriate exercise of CC power. That last dig at Thomas notwithstanding, he is by far the justice with the most cabined view of Congress’s power. See, eg Raich and Lopez. I’d wager that, if there are votes to strike down a ban, Thomas would be among them
Maybe the way the SC reconciles a federal ban with its previous “send it to the states” position is by saying it went to the states who decided the best course of action was for the US Congress to act, through officials elected by the states, collaboratively to ban? Why can’t the laboratory’s best idea be collective federal action?
Interesting as far as it goes, but one question that isn’t considered is how the liberal justices would deal with a national abortion ban. If memory serves, the court’s liberals are surefire votes for finding that a given law is an appropriate exercise of CC power. That last dig at Thomas notwithstanding, he is by far the justice with the most cabined view of Congress’s power. See, eg Raich and Lopez. I’d wager that, if there are votes to strike down a ban, Thomas would be among them
Maybe the way the SC reconciles a federal ban with its previous “send it to the states” position is by saying it went to the states who decided the best course of action was for the US Congress to act, through officials elected by the states, collaboratively to ban? Why can’t the laboratory’s best idea be collective federal action?
What a sham this court is. Total hypocrisy and bad faith jurisprudence
Matthew: any thoughts about the fact that Alex Holder, for his "insider" video of the family of TFG, has appropriated your blog-title?