Litigation

Copland on Kagan

By Ted Frank

What does it mean to be "properly deferential" asks MI's Jim Copland in yesterday's Washington Examiner.

Separately, Senator Tom Coburn was the only senator to hold Kagan's feet to the fire. He posed a hypothetical about the limits of the Commerce Clause: can the federal government mandate citizens eat fruits and vegetables every day? Kagan got out of it by endorsing the Supreme Court jurisprudence that the Commerce Clause does not apply to "non-economic activity"—but of course, nearly everything counts as economic activity under the left's version of the Commerce Clause, where all Congress would have to do pass this law is recite "findings" that the failure to eat fruits and vegetables had a deleterious effect on the nation's economy. [YouTube; Politico; LA Times]

Full post as published by Point of Law on July 01, 2010 (boomark / email).