After reading the opinions in Gonzales v. Raich for a second (and in some instances - 3rd) time, I'm ready to state that Thomas's opinion makes the better argument against Scalia.
Those two opinions (Scalia concurring in the result) and Thomas (dissenting) are the two most interesting to juxtapose. It's rare when you see Thomas and Scalia differing. What you can learn from really reading these two opinions is something that makes sense.
When the two differ it is usually because Scalia is really going out of his way to be results oriented.
Thomas is by far the more consistent originalist on the court. I realize that Scalia isn't a strict originalist, but on issues of federalism he typically takes an originalist interpretation. He goes out of his way to twist that in order to arrive at the desired result in this opinion.
It's understandable that many libertarians and state's rights advocates are appalled by his decision.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Raich Part 2
-x-
