4 thoughts on “Is This 1936 In Reverse?”

  1. Great stuff Rand, thanks for linking.

    Yet in the wake of the Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority decision to uphold the mandate on taxing power grounds, Barnett has been downplaying the legal significance of that precedent, especially relative to the Court’s ruling that the law was not allowable under the Commerce Clause.

    I’m still unsure about whether or not that is technically accurate. If I read Mark Levine correctly, it is not:

    You cannot say it was the “opinion of the court” that the mandate violated the commerce clause.

    And he addresses “precedent”.

    Also, I found Jerry Pournelle to be an excellent read yesterday.

  2. … Also James Taranto on Ginsburg’s vitriol.

    And I especially like Daniel Foster’s take:

    There have been no notable conservatives questioning the Court’s legitimacy, no conspiratorial talk about “coups,” no plans to Occupy SCOTUS or impeach Roberts. Indeed, some of the brightest minds on the Right are dedicating column inches today to defending the man’s honor. I trust you all realize that nothing like this would have been possible on the Left.

    Nope. It would have been one spit-filled profanity-laced content-free diatribe after another.

  3. Romney should already be picking two of the most “rabidly right-wing” justice candidates he can. If he’s elected, he should wait until both Breyer and Ginsberg retire, then bide his time until the Senate goes into recess…then do two recess appointments.

    The progs would have no grounds to protest that one…

    1. If Obama appears to be losing, I expect Ginsberg to retire later this year, so that Obama can replace her. She made it clear that she didn’t want Bush replacing her and would probably feel the same about Romney. The biggest question is if they will do it in a time frame that allows for her to legitimately be replaced, or if it is some sort of ramrod process.

Comments are closed.