Hi guys, Sorry I was slow getting back here—had some work projects pop up. Hey RustBelt, thanks for elucidating your views. I feel more comfortable now that you’ve said you’re not into traditional definitions of "conservative" and "liberal". I saw the defeated nomination of Bork as a sign that Congress wasn’t going to let the S Ct bench get TOO Political. Of course, others see it as other things. While the Court is always going to have political views and you are right in saying administrations try to load the bench with people who follow the "party line", I think the Court tries to avoid getting too involved with politics because it tarnishes its image by making it look too political. Perhaps the disputed election reminded them of that? I hope so, because I really didn’t think the S Ct should even be involved, although like you I haven’t been doing homework on the issue and I was a lot less concerned about it than many political mavens whose jobs were literally hanging in the balance of who got elected.
And, Tom – One thing I like about this bench is that the S Ct in recent years has been emphasizing states’ rights and taking away from the power of the central federal govt to regulate under the Commerce Clause, so it is much more difficult for the feds exercise that power now. Taking the political view, I think the only reason the Commerce Clause power got expanded so far was to allow the federal govt to implement civil rights policy in states that wouldn’t do it on their own. Now that inroads have been made there, I see much less justification for the Commerce Clause power overall.