Comments on: Raich — gay marriage?

By: Vote for Judges

Vote for Judges — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 16:02:51 +0000

What If, Judgewise?

So in next year’s hypothetical election, two conservatives and a liberal (and all three Republicans) would face the voters. How would the campaigns shape up?

By: Jake Hartman

Jake Hartman — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 02:23:08 +0000

I do find no same sex marrige laws as laws that do not comply with the bill of rights, but If congress passes a law, it means in a way that the citizens of the usa passed the law. Due to the fact that they elected the congressmen.
So its Bill of rights versus the genral populas

By: Calblog

Calblog — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 23:51:48 +0000

Ashcroft v. Raich – The Supreme Court on Federalism

After trekking through the 9th Circuit, the long awaited decision in Ashcroft v. Raich is finally here. (Along with a concurrence and a dissent or two). Larry Solumn provides a good summary of the arguments here. As is usually the…

By: Rob Store

Rob Store — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 22:17:21 +0000

Well, at least we know that if it was couched in the language of a larger “economic regulatory scheme” of, let’s say, interstate trafficing of diamonds, and we had a congressional finding that there was no factor that more influenced an individual’s likelihood of buting a diamond then whther or not they marry, we would have Scalia on board.

By: Rich Brust

Rich Brust — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:56:44 +0000

I am intrigued by Prof. Barron’s observation that this has become a Stevens court. I have heard others similarly note, but I wonder about the causes of and the evidence for such a, shall we say, transition.
Is it that the absence of the Chief Justice has strengthened Stevens’ prerogative as senior to appoint the majority writer? Or are there other more philosophical reasons that prompt that observation? It hasn’t escaped anyone’s notice that the court has moderated its federalism jurisprudence over the last two to three years, and Raich follows that line.

By: Half Sigma

Half Sigma — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 19:27:33 +0000

I don’t see how this answer is that relevant. It has long been held that Congress can’t pass laws that violate the Bill of Rights, even if the “right” is based on some vague penumbra of a penumbra.