Justice Scalia Now Seems More Skeptical About ‘Obamacare’ Than Home-Grown Marijuana

Antonin ScaliaCan’t make this stuff up. Reid Pillifant writes on Capital New York:

To some longtime observers of the Supreme Court, the surprising part of yesterday’s oral argument wasn’t that Justice Anthony Kennedy critically questioned the individual mandate; it was the harshly skeptical tone from Justice Antonin Scalia.

Scalia, one of the court’s most outspoken characters, has long been an originalist villain to those on the left, but there was a distinct strain of thought, at least among some constitutional scholars, that he might be inclined to look favorably upon the Affordable Care Act.

That idea rested primarily on his concurrence in Gonzales v. Raich, a 2005 case out of California, in which the court found that the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce extended to marijuana that was grown at home solely for personal consumption…

Read More: Capital New York

5 Comments on "Justice Scalia Now Seems More Skeptical About ‘Obamacare’ Than Home-Grown Marijuana"

  1. Theres hardly any purpose in searching for any sign of consistency when it comes to the right side of the court. Leaving aside that I personally consider the purchase mandate an overreach of federal authority which should be struck down…the sad truth is that the well stacked court we have today will bend and twist in the wind to deliver even the flimsiest justification for supporting a neo-conservative agenda with all their hearts. Maybe I want the mandate struck down…but that doesn’t change my overall disgust and disillusionment with the hacks we call judges today. Some of the questions they put forward this week have sounded like junior high debate class instead of Supreme Court grillings. The spectacle is enough to turn my stomach.

    • Liam_McGonagle | Mar 29, 2012 at 7:07 pm |

      Yeah, I don’t know which aspect of the Supremes makes me more nauseous–that they’re willing to carve the U.S. into corporate fiefdoms to preserve the principle of price fixing or that they don’t appear overly vexed about granting extraordinary police powers to curb public dissent.

      And again I find myself just fantastically underwhelmed by caliber of B-listers O’Dumba has defending what is supposed to be the foundation of his historical legacy.  This fellow seemed completely unprepared when Kennedy asked him to differentiate between the risk of bankruptcy posed by an unforeseen auto accident and the mild inconvenience relating to the discretionary deferral of brunch until 10 AM.

      That’s why I still kinda/sorta favor the Hanlon’s Razor theory of Democratic Party failure.  Yes, Obama has racked up his share of corporate patrons, but I just can’t understand why a man would continually soil himself in public the way Obama has time and time again unless it were related to a deep, deep lack of mental acumen.

      On a lighter note, however, this pic of Scalia does look like he’s hoovered up more than his share of Doritos.  Might “munchies” be the culprit?

  2. emperorreagan | Mar 30, 2012 at 10:38 am |

    I think originalism is a stupid theory put forward by the same sort of idiots who have been working to shove biblical literalism down everyone’s throats.  

    It’s like some sort of steampunk world, except instead of a bunch of people playing dress up and building neat twists on modern devices in their basements, it’s a rich white slug of a man imagining what a rich white slug of a man thought a piece of text meant several hundred years ago, then claiming we should all be governed by his thoughts on the matter.

  3. Oldsmoothiebot59 | May 20, 2012 at 5:17 pm |

    one thing i know is this. we need to elect obama, and forget the personal discontent with him, here is why. there most likely will be two new supreme court justices appointed by obama in his second term. they need to be democrats, and desperately so. in fact, i would argue it is the most important achievement a president can make to and for his country. yeah, i dont like the pot situation on a federal level either, but the pot legalization,or alike issues,pales in comparison to the justices that will be appointed. the court, the court that unbelievably opened up the money in elections to limitless support by one man or group (and we r talking billions of dollars), with the cherry on top, non-disclosure of the source. would and will not that leave open the possibility of foreign interests buying our president, cus as we all know, the ignorant electorate, beLIEves the ads, and the ads they broadcast. sad but true.

    dont be fooled, the candidates are counting on americans lack of knowledge or history concerning the presidential campaigns. for, if romney is elected, you wont have to worry about pot legalizatioin, cus he will tank our economy, and so few will be able to even afford it. u think it is bad now? elect romney and see with happens. so, look at the whole candidate, not just one policy, and make an informed and educated choice. at least take the time to understand and find out the truth before you. take the time to study the candidates, for God save us, if u do not.

    just one more thing. in a perfect world, i would cast my vote for Gary Johnson, he is for the people, and has the less objectionalbe policies over Paul. but i suggest, u seriously study, and study hard on these men, and their quest. we dont want to be victims of ourselves, by ignorance on our parts, it is our futures at stake and our childrens. for the kids, get educated on all issues a candidate is offering, NOT just the pot issue, become a well rounded, informed voter. we will all be the better for it. as is the case for almost all americans, we will still get our high, status quo there. let the show begin.  peace.

Comments are closed.