As much as I enjoy Scalia's temperment, I think a Supreme Court full of Thomases would better fufill its function. His view of his role is modest and many of his opinions are brief and direct.
For all the oxygen we used in L-school yacking about the commerce clause, it is shocking in retrospect that no one in my class, me included, made an observation as simple as Thomas' in his dissent in Raich.
Quote:
|
The Clause’s text, structure, and history all indicate that, at the time of the founding, the term “ ‘commerce’ consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes.” Id., at 585 (Thomas, J., concurring). Commerce, or trade, stood in contrast to productive activities like manufacturing and agriculture. Id., at 586—587 (Thomas, J., concurring).
|
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html
The idea that "interstate commerce" means actual commerce that is interstate would be embarrassingly obvious had the observation not gone missing for so long.