Yes, once again that is my pun-tastic way of saying I am going to be on John Smart’s radio show. One thing that strikes me as funny when talking about him is that despite a wide political difference, on a lot of things we think very much alike.
I am going to be on around 9:15ish Eastern time, if you only want to tune in for me, but you know what? Don’t. He is truly an independent thinker and he has views worth listening to. And if you care to listen, here is the link. Supposedly people will be able to listen there, somehow, at the time. And the topic will be previewing the Obamacare oral arguments.
I am actually seriously thinking of taking some time out to go and watch those arguments, except as I understand it they don’t let anyone just sit and watch. They let you come in, watch for like 2 minutes and then shuttle you out. Which really kind of misses the point. But I believe they will release the audio of the hearing and I will definitely be listening to that as quickly as I can.
Just to preview, the one to watch is Kennedy. While it is dangerous trying to read tea leaves like this, well… we’ll probably do it anyway and his leaves are the one to read. As one wag put it, this is Kennedy’s Constitution, and we just live under it.
---------------------------------------
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates. And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here. And you can read a little more about my novel, here.
Allow me to put in a plug to watching Scalia (as well as Kennedy).
ReplyDeleteIn 2005, when the Supreme Court last heard a major Commerce Clause challenge to a federal regulation, Scalia sided with the liberal majority and wrote a sweeping opinion in favor of federal power. That case was Gonzales v. Raich, where the Court held that the cultivation and consumption of medical marijuana entirely within the confines of the state of California still qualified as "commerce...among the several states" because this intrastate use of medical pot "substantially affects" the interstate black market in the drug.
Scalia wrote in his concurring opinion that Congress "may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce." Scalia also distinguished his vote on two other recent Commerce Clause cases, saying "Neither [Lopez nor Morrison] involved the power of Congress to exert control over intrastate activities in connection with a more comprehensive scheme of regulation."
This goes to the main objection of the individual mandate -- i.e., that it is a purely private intrastate transaction that government cannot reach under the Commerce Clause. Yet, Scalia's previous ruling would indicate that he might be okay with the individual mandate, so long as it is a necessary part of a more comprehensive federal scheme (which everyone agrees, it is).
So watch Scalia, too. Yes, he may ultimately come down against the individual mandate, but he's going to have to find some way to contradict or distinguish is earlier writings. And his questions might give us a clue.
Good luck on the show.
Nice insights, Ken. I'll definitely keep my ear open for Scalia's questions that might distinguish Raich.
ReplyDeleteWild guess: they are not going to ask the parties 'why the heck shouldn't the Court overturn Wickard?' and then hit a loud buzzer every time they try to talk. Unfortunate.