New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | November 2, 2005

In the last decade, the Supreme Court has made tentative moves toward the radical position that the Interstate Commerce Clause only empowers Congress to regulate things actually having to do with interstate commerce—but Jacob Sullum isn't confident that John Roberts and Sam Alito will keep up the fight.

Comments

|11.2.05 @ 9:18AM|#

Errors reign no more on your parade.

|11.2.05 @ 9:50AM|#

The ICC fight is long over, and we lost. That particular windmill is always fun to tilt at, though.

Warren|11.2.05 @ 9:52AM|#

I don't think I'll ever be sober again.

|11.2.05 @ 9:58AM|#

We cannot allow this because it would allow all sorts of things we need the government to do to be overturned as long as they allow roes we have no problem because that is the only thing anyone cares about and the most important right what we got to chose what to do with some non living parasite invading our bodies ourselves.

|11.2.05 @ 10:19AM|#

Uhm, "Juanita"...it's a little early to be drinking, dear.

MP|11.2.05 @ 10:20AM|#

It can't be easy to write a run-on sentence of that magnitude. Juanita should be applauded.

|11.2.05 @ 11:31AM|#

I dont think the fight is ever over, So long as enough people think that Wickard V Filburn was decidedly in a way that benefits 'society' then the court will rule accordingly. But that is not to say it can never change. The fight is really over hearts and minds. The debt alone of the federal government is reason enough to give reason to re-think the role of powers in our country.

|11.2.05 @ 11:58AM|#

"Uhm, 'Juanita'...it's a little early to be drinking, dear.

Is it late enough yet? 'Cause after trying to parse that, I really need a drink...

(Pro-Life, but lucid)

|11.2.05 @ 2:28PM|#

"regulating the taking of a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own, lives its entire life in California"

We need more of this type of language in Supreme Court decisions. Hurray for Roberts!

|11.2.05 @ 2:34PM|#

The real point is that *even if* Roberts and Alito wanted to go back to the pre-*Wickard* intepretation of the ICC (and I am pretty sure Roberts at least does not want to do so), it wouldn't matter, because apart from the four Lopez dissenters, neither Scalia nor Kennedy is willing to do so.

There is an obvious reason why more justices have not joined Thomas: there is no real political advantage in appointing someone who shares his opinion on this issue. It frightens liberals and centrists and does not have any particular appeal to social conservatives. Libertarians alone are not a sufficiently large constituency for a president to worry about. More important, Republican presidents are just as fond of federal power as Democratic ones (though they use it for different purposes and to reward different constituents) and have no reason to appoint anyone seriously interested in curbing it.

|11.2.05 @ 3:11PM|#

Interesting....

This is Mr. Sullums second sentence:

"Now they're warning that Samuel Alito, President Bush's latest Supreme Court pick, is hostile to federal gun control."

So I follow the link that Mr. Sullum provides. So I read it, I'm down to page 15 of 24, hmmmm....

No mention of guns?

All civil rights talk so far, albeit left of center rights talk, plenty for a libertarian to quibble with, but no guns...primarily left leaning civil rights assesment (although it certainly suggests, even to a libertarian mind that Alito may, just may, have a firmer belief in "powers" of governemt, than of "rights" of citizens, but quibble, quibble...)

page 16?
17?
18?
19?
20?
20!!

So. The first 19 of 24 pages deals with civil rights, and the ony pages that deal with gun issues are 20 and 21.

And Mr. Sullum feels comfortable leading with that second sentence in the article.

"Now they're warning that Samuel Alito, President Bush's latest Supreme Court pick, is hostile to federal gun control."

----

With quality assesment of that calibar, I see the New York Times in Mr. Sullums future.

I am reminded of such quality documentary directors such as M. Moore, such quality reporting the likes of Judith Miller, and such brave commentary the likes of Jonah G.

What I don't understand is why someone I respect as much as I do Mr. Sullum would even waste his time on such a shoddy misdirection. Too many liberals starting to like you? You wanted to scare them off?

Proving your conservative chops?

|11.2.05 @ 3:36PM|#

Johnny,
For someone who purportedly respects someone so much, you are not very charitable.
The article is primarily about the commerce clause. The article linked was presumably chosen because it is a somewhat respected source as opposed to some molotov cocktail tossing hyper-partisan site. His point wasn't that it was issue #1 for this group, just that they are 'warning' about it.
As others have mentioned, neither major party has a vested interest in limiting the commerce clause. Libertarians are almost alone in wanting it limited. He is addressing the perspective that we have hope, unfortunately not optimistically.