Will more prominent, respected conservatives come out of the woodwork to defend Obamacare’s constitutionality? This is the fifth.
“The individual health mandate surely passes constitutional muster under settled judicial principles. The Constitution’s Commerce Clause grants Congress the authority “to regulate commerce … among the several States.” The Court’s precedents establish without question that Congress may regulate intrastate economic activities that Congress (not the Court) reasonably concludes have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The existence of such congressional authority is especially clear when the challenged provision itself is part of a comprehensive legislative scheme that regulates interstate commerce.”
- Henry Paul Monaghan, A Conservative Law Professor on the Obvious Constitutionality of Obamacare
Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress
Justice Sonia Sotomayor visits Sesame Street, hears a case about corporate securities fraud.
(Source: theamericanprospect)
My day on Capitol Hill
Today was fun. I headed out early in the morning and took the Metro to Capitol Hill. My first stop was the office of my House representative, Chris Van Hollen, where I picked up passes for the House and Senate galleries. The Senate gallery, I discovered when I arrived in the Capitol’s beautiful Visitor Center, was not yet open. So I checked out the House gallery. It looks…exactly like what you see on TV, because, well, that’s what it is. There was no one in there at the time — Congress is only technically in session through extremely brief pro forma meetings every day. Even so, no photograph was allowed.
Satisfied with my glimpse, I headed over to the Supreme Court to determine when I should get in line for the afternoon argument that I wanted to watch, FCC v. Fox Television Stations. Surprisingly, the argument was being held at 11am, not 1pm as I’d thought. So at 9:45am, I got in line and waited outside through the first argument until we were brought inside for FCC v. Fox.
What I saw in the courtroom could not have been typical of most Supreme Court oral arguments. The case was about obscenity and fleeting expletives — in other words, nudity and swearing — on broadcast TV, so the lawyers’ speeches focused on the nature and context of these incidents. At one point, a lawyer for the respondents (Fox was the named respondent, but ABC was also present) pointed out that even the design of the courtroom we were in featured instances of partial nudity. Indeed, most of the historical figures in the wall reliefs were scantily-clad. As the lawyer continued talking, Justice Breyer was noticeably glancing around trying to ascertain to which figure he was referring. So the lawyer, much to the amusement of the audience (and some on the Court), pointed and said, “Right over here, Justice Breyer.” There were other moments that provoked laughter from the entire chamber, as the Justices had some fun with the scandalous subject matter.
You can read more about the oral argument in Adam Liptak’s piece for The New York Times.
In a rollicking Supreme Court argument that was equal parts cultural criticism and First Amendment doctrine, the justices on Tuesday considered whether the government still has good reason to regulate cursing and nudity on broadcast television
[…]
Justice Elena Kagan offered a summary. “The way that this policy seems to work,” she said, “it’s like nobody can use dirty words or nudity except for Steven Spielberg.”
After the argument ended, and we had risen for the departure of the justices, I explored the Court museum (including the above statue of Chief Justice John Marshall), grabbed lunch at the cafeteria, and then headed over to the Capitol for a group tour. The tour began with a pretty good fifteen-minute documentary on the history of the building. Then, we checked out the rotunda, the crypt, the old Supreme Court chamber, and National Statuary Hall. The vintage Court chamber (pictured below) was particularly interesting to me, because that was where the justices decided several major cases that formed the bedrock of my Constitutional Law class, like Marbury v. Madison and Dred Scott v. Sandford.
I followed up my tour of the Capitol with a look at the Library of Congress (photo below). The Reading Room, famously seen in the movie National Treasure, was closed to the public when I visited. However, I did get a look at a few other sections of the library, including an exhibit called “Creating the United States.”
By 2:30pm, with two drained batteries and only a few museums left on my schedule, I figured I would call it a day. Waiting for and then watching the Supreme Court argument took up the majority of my time, but it was definitely worth it to see the Court “in action.”
You can see more photos of my day on Capitol Hill right here.
(Source: colbertnation.com)
In one sense, the Court’s approach [in the majority opinion] is worlds apart from that of The Chief Justice and Justice Scalia. And yet, in another sense, the distance between the two approaches is short - the distance is but a single vote.
I am 83 years old. I cannot remain on this Court forever, and when I do step down, the confirmation process for my successor well may focus on the issue before us today. That, I regret, may be exactly where the choice between the two worlds will be made.
” Supreme Court Justice Harold Blackmun commenting poignantly on the dangerous split in the Court’s decision in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. You go, Justice Blackmun.(Source: law.cornell.edu)
