In a new book released just ahead of the ‘Obamacare’ ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia is criticizing a crucial precedent underlying the constitutionality of the law’s individual mandate, even though he embraced its premise as recently as 2005.
UCLA legal scholar, Adam Winkler explains the meaning of the flip/flop.
This is typical Scalia. He respects precedents when they fit his conservative ideology and disregards them when they don’t. He claims that history should guide judges. But nothing about the history of the commerce clause has changed. What’s changed is the political implications of the commerce clause. When its being invoked for law and order conservatives, he favors Wickard. When invoked by liberals to support healthcare reform, he thinks Wickard is bad law. Once again, we see that Scalia’s originalism is a charade.
Or, more succinctly, Scalia is a partisan douche-bag.