Another example of an activist court applying probably the most strained reasoning I have ever read—reading the interstate commerce clause which allows for regulation of interstate commerce to allow for the regulation of any economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. In other words, the federal government can regulate something under the interstate commerce Clause that is neither interstate nor commerce.
That’s not rumor, its fact. He did publicly threaten to pack the courts. If we had a majority of Justice Thomas’s, there’d be a shot. He’s the only true originalist on the court. If you ever read his opinions, they read and flow so coherently because he is so logical and committed to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. He doesn’t play games, he says what the law is regardless of his decision’s outcome. Other justices, even originalists, play games with interpreting the text out of perceived concern re political influence. For example, Roberts would never dare reverse Roe v Wade because he is so afraid of the left and of the court “losing its legitimacy.” That, in my opinion, is indicative of being a spineless coward not willing to stand up for the true meaning of the Constitution against negative political pressure.
2nd question:
What's your opinion on Wikard v Filburn as a supreme court decision?
Another example of an activist court applying probably the most strained reasoning I have ever read—reading the interstate commerce clause which allows for regulation of interstate commerce to allow for the regulation of any economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. In other words, the federal government can regulate something under the interstate commerce Clause that is neither interstate nor commerce.
I heard FDR was threatening to pack to courts if they started ruling against him, you think that's true?
And what do you think it would take for a modern supreme court to override that ruling?
That’s not rumor, its fact. He did publicly threaten to pack the courts. If we had a majority of Justice Thomas’s, there’d be a shot. He’s the only true originalist on the court. If you ever read his opinions, they read and flow so coherently because he is so logical and committed to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. He doesn’t play games, he says what the law is regardless of his decision’s outcome. Other justices, even originalists, play games with interpreting the text out of perceived concern re political influence. For example, Roberts would never dare reverse Roe v Wade because he is so afraid of the left and of the court “losing its legitimacy.” That, in my opinion, is indicative of being a spineless coward not willing to stand up for the true meaning of the Constitution against negative political pressure.