The New York Times reports:
Justice Scalia writes, for instance, that he has little
use for a central precedent the Obama administration has cited to
justify the health care law under the Constitution’s commerce clause,
Wickard v. Filburn.
In that 1942 decision, Justice Scalia writes, the Supreme Court “expanded the Commerce Clause
beyond all reason” by ruling that “a farmer’s cultivation of wheat for
his own consumption affected interstate commerce and thus could be
regulated under the Commerce Clause.”…
Justice Scalia’s treatment of the Wickard case had been far more
respectful in his judicial writings. In the book’s preface, he explains
(referring to himself in the third person) that he “knows that there are
some, and fears that there may be many, opinions that he has joined or
written over the past 30 years that contradict what is written here.”
Some inconsistencies can be explained by respect for precedent, he
writes, others “because wisdom has come late.”
No comments:
Post a Comment