Coburn grills Kagan: Could Congress require people to eat certain foods under the Commerce Clause?

posted at 8:17 pm on June 29, 2010 by Allahpundit

So the rumors were true — something interesting did get said at today’s interminably boring hearing. Don’t blame me for the bizarre editing decision here to end the clip before she had a chance to answer his question — I’m just giving you what I’ve got — but according to TPM, we’re not missing much. Apparently she simply dodged the question.

Coburn says, what if the bill says “we’ve imposed this requirement to reduce health care costs.” Kagan says, I’ve given you the principles I would apply and I don’t feel I can go farther.

Coburn then says that the lack of limits on Congress’s power–the refusal to enforce the Framers’ original intent, in his view–has led to a federal government bigger than anything the Framers could have anticipated. And that has led to the budget deficit that burdens Americans today.

Kagan replies that one of the Court’s earliest decisions adopted a broad view of the Commerce Clause.

Normally this would be a chance to declare her “out of the mainstream,” but let’s face it: The idea that Congress can do anything its black little heart desires so long as there’s some glancing relationship to commerce is perfectly within the Democratic mainstream — and, in certain cases, the Republican mainstream too. In fact, some legal experts expect the inevitable Supreme Court ruling on O-Care’s individual mandate will break 9-0 or 8-1. I’m skeptical of that, but after the Raich decision, would it surprise you?

In other news about today’s boring Kagan dodges, she acknowledged that judges should look at foreign law but hinted that it should only be done in cases touching on international matters. Oh, and she admitted that Miguel Estrada is perfectly qualified to sit on the appellate bench or the Supreme Court. What a treat to find that out years later. Exit question via Newsweek: Seriously, why do we even hold these hearings?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Kagan is straight from Mordor.

Inanemergencydial on June 29, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Inanemergencydial: Oh that good,me likey!!:)

canopfor on June 29, 2010 at 10:39 PM

Thanks for the link. Yes, red meat.

Firefly_76 on June 29, 2010 at 10:34 PM

Firefly_76:)

canopfor on June 29, 2010 at 10:40 PM

In other words, the constitution is an elastic band that stretches as far as her political ideology will allow, and snaps back — when it suits her.

Firefly_76 on June 29, 2010 at 10:34 PM

How is having a Constitution that means anything you want it to any different than not having a Constitution?

Holger on June 29, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Seriously, why do we allow these ego maniacs to parade and preen before the TV cameras.

Skandia Recluse on June 29, 2010 at 10:51 PM

I still say the Republicans just aren’t playing hardball with this one and they should be. Everyone knows these people are going to dodge the questions well, they shouldn’t be allowed to. Hell, if I were Coburn, I would point out that anti-smoking legislation today has gone way beyond what makes sense and could easily be viewed as punative against a group of people who pay a huge tax to do what they do. No one would have envisioned that so why would the government think it can’t go after your diet. These Democrats don’t feel they have any restrictions and their judges don’t either.

bflat879 on June 29, 2010 at 10:54 PM

The Husband wants to know why Justice Sotomayor said that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right during her hearings but then voted against McDonald. He wants her impeached or charged with perjury. Something.

Cindy Munford on June 29, 2010 at 11:13 PM

The idea that Congress can do anything its black little heart desires so long as there’s some glancing relationship to commerce is perfectly within the Democratic mainstream

Well said. And insight on their tyrannical leanings. Liberals won’t “get it” until they themselves are enslaved.

scotash on June 29, 2010 at 11:19 PM

On the bright side…Kagan will just be replacing a libtard. On the dark side, what happens if something were to happen to one of our conservative justices before we can get this Obamination out of office? 5-4 in their favor does not seem very favorable to me.

BadMojo on June 29, 2010 at 11:28 PM

Holger @ 10:42

There is no substantive difference but it is useful to trot out the constitution as justification for those who still pretend we have the rule of law. And when you uphold unpopular legislation it helps to point to your ‘authori-tah’. The little people need to respect the authori-tah doncha know.

Firefly_76 on June 29, 2010 at 11:31 PM

See this woman needs to be in some other country. Us Americans don’t want to be ordered to do anything. We are a free Nation and many people died on our soil and on foreign soil to keep it that way. Her and Obama need to go to Africa and run something down there. Pick a country but leave us alone. They seriously need to be escorted out.

johnnyU on June 29, 2010 at 11:37 PM

Same topic, different point…

http://article.nationalreview.com/437296/kagans-abortion-distortion/shannen-w-coffin?page=1

ouch…is there an equivalent to witness tampering in these kid of proceedings?

Fighton03 on June 29, 2010 at 11:49 PM

The Commerce Clause: The part of the Constitution that tells the federal government they can do damn well anything they want to us, and expect us to pony up the cash when the bill comes due.

Follow-up question: Have Kagan and Jon Lovitz ever been spotted together in the same room at the same time?

Bruce MacMahon on June 29, 2010 at 11:53 PM

That picture of Kagan on the front page…it looks like she’s constipated or something.

gryphon202 on June 30, 2010 at 12:17 AM

How is having a Constitution that means anything you want it to any different than not having a Constitution?

Holger on June 29, 2010 at 10:42 PM

I’ll say what a lot of other people have been saying, but put it into my own words: It gives the Democrats a thin veneer of respectability, enough to pull the wool over the eyes of America’s most gullible voters

gryphon202 on June 30, 2010 at 12:20 AM

Hey, she taught a village to fish, started a small business in her spare time and always met payroll, sponsored an Orca, breastfed a Depression bum, and kept the U.S. military out of trouble at Harvard.

(Maybe one small detail was lifted from “The Grapes of Wrath“, but nobody’s perfect!)

profitsbeard on June 30, 2010 at 12:24 AM

Follow-up question: Have Kagan and Jon LovitzPatton Oswalt ever been spotted together in the same room at the same time?

Bruce MacMahon on June 29, 2010 at 11:53 PM

Fixed that for ya.

James on June 30, 2010 at 1:15 AM

Pssst, Kagan. The answer is “no.”

Mallard T. Drake on June 30, 2010 at 1:36 AM

Answer the question, Kagan!

Yeah, that is just what I thought . . . .

Sherman1864 on June 30, 2010 at 3:19 AM

Why does she look like Jackey Gleason to me?

AAAALLLLice!

Captain America on June 30, 2010 at 3:20 AM

I guess she did answer it, didn`t she?

What a crapfest! Intolerable! Kagan has no place on the Supreme Court or the food court as far as I am concerned.

Stay off the courts, Kaygun!

Sherman1864 on June 30, 2010 at 3:22 AM

Why does she look like Jackey Gleason to me?

AAAALLLLice!

Captain America on June 30, 2010 at 3:20 AM

Because she just eats fruits and veggies??

Sherman1864 on June 30, 2010 at 3:24 AM

Well said. And insight on their tyrannical leanings. Liberals won’t “get it” until they themselves are enslaved.

scotash on June 29, 2010 at 11:19 PM

Liberals will most likely relish their enslavement, due to their desire to see us as weaker/worse than the rest of the planet. Why? Because they have an innate desire to apologize to everyone for being the best nation on the planet. Hence why they somehow got Obama voted into office.

Besides, once enslaved, they’ll have someone else to blame for all their ills. Remember: for a liberal, there is absolutely ZERO personal responsibility.

jedijson on June 30, 2010 at 4:44 AM

Looking at the pic Drudge has up I swear someone needs to throw holy water on this woman to see if she starts smoking. She’s a nasty looking thing. This couls tip the court if B.O. proves to be falsly in office as well.

johnnyU on June 30, 2010 at 6:44 AM

Cindy Munford on June 29, 2010 at 11:13 PM

frustrating ain’t it? this is sotomayor redux, she say all the things graham and hatch want to hear and then will do the opposite once on the bench….

cmsinaz on June 30, 2010 at 6:49 AM

It is time to start a rumor in DC that Kagan is the product of a mostly failed, Nixonian program to “Manchurian Candidate” the highest levels of the Democrat’s leadership, and appointments.

Maybe something about it finally working?

Slowburn on June 30, 2010 at 7:27 AM

Expect the next wave of illegals to drop the drugs they’re smuggling in in favor of whatever food the leftist nanny’s ban.

“Pssst Senor, How many pesos will you give me for a genuine hotdog from the bull arena?”

Don L on June 30, 2010 at 8:32 AM

Could Congress require people to eat certain foods under the Commerce Clause?

-
If they could, they would. If given the opportunity they will try.

diogenes on June 30, 2010 at 8:34 AM

How is having a Constitution that means anything you want it to any different than not having a Constitution?…It gives the Democrats a thin veneer of respectability, enough to pull the wool over the eyes of America’s most gullible voters

That little thin veneer seems to have gone a long way in the last fifty years.

Don L on June 30, 2010 at 8:37 AM

Coburn gives me a bit of hope we can avoid Miss K on the court.

Mojave Mark on June 30, 2010 at 8:38 AM

If anybody need to curb the way they eat, it’s obviously Kagan the Cow. Lay off the twinkies, lady!

ErinF on June 30, 2010 at 8:46 AM

Due to this one and Clinton’s man Janet Reno, I will never wear a periwinkle suit and pearls. Seems to be the liberal standard for lipstick on a pig.

InTheBellyoftheBeast on June 30, 2010 at 8:53 AM

Amen! This woman is grotesque! Is this the standard liberals set for positions as powerful and prestigeous as the Supreme Court and the Administration? Shalala, Sotamayor, Reno, Ginsberg, Napolitano, not just the physicality but the utter incompetence and radicalisms past, present, and yet to come!?! We can’t do better than this?!? It’s one thing if these women were superb and competent but other than being hideously ugly, I’m sorry for showing my chauvinism here, but I just don’t get it nor do I want to.

mozalf on June 30, 2010 at 9:05 AM

She is a marxist. She can’t imagine limits on the commerce clause. This hearing shows her charade.

seven on June 30, 2010 at 9:05 AM

“The question tricked her because she eats a box lunch.”

–RSG

RarestRX on June 30, 2010 at 9:12 AM

When they pry my MalloCups from my cold,dead hands.

katy the mean old lady on June 30, 2010 at 9:15 AM

As if Kagan actually eats as she should. She loves to enforce laws upon the masses that never apply to her elitist Marxist overlord caste.

maverick muse on June 30, 2010 at 9:38 AM

Byrd died and Kagan lost that deciding vote for her SCOTUS appointment.

maverick muse on June 30, 2010 at 9:40 AM

Ask Kagan what she thinks about Sotomayor having perjured during her confirmation hearings with regards to her then claims about the 2nd Amendment rights versus her vote against same the other day in the Chicago case. What does she think should be Sotomayor’s penalty?

viking01 on June 30, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Kagan has no place on the Supreme Court or the food court

heh

maverick muse on June 30, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Seriously, why do we even hold these hearings?

So Democrat senators can smear Republican nominees, naturally.

ddrintn on June 29, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Tread winnah.

LibTired on June 30, 2010 at 9:44 AM

Cindy Munford on June 29, 2010 at 11:13 PM

viking01 on June 30, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Glad to see we both are following that same angle.

viking01 on June 30, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Just think of what Stalin could have accomplished if only he’d had the Commerce Clause.

Akzed on June 30, 2010 at 10:21 AM

I was asking myself the same thing. ‘WHy have hearings?’ They bring a bunch of stuff to light and it goes unanswered. When this women gets in there its lights out America. This is the enforcement to our Constitution for ‘THE PEOPLE’. This woman is not for THE PEOPLE. Again she needs to go to another country and rule. And is there a man is this womans life? She’s a friggin bulldog who ate the lipstick.

johnnyU on June 30, 2010 at 10:28 AM

I’m sorry if this offend someone but everytime i see Kagan she remind me of those poor kids with down syndrome.

Falz on June 30, 2010 at 10:28 AM

I also say if she gets confirmed without a fillabuster to stop it, then there are some Republicans in play for the upcoming elections as well. She is not in OUR interest PERIOD.

johnnyU on June 30, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Kagan’s legal mind isn’t very impressive. How would it be possible to enforce such a law without violating the Fourth Amendment systematically? That’s the first of countless problems with such a law. What’s a reasonable suspicion you haven’t eaten your veggies?

Kagan’s confusion is a reflection of how far our republic has descended to rule of man instead of law. Deference to congress has replaced the USC. Kagan has admitted what many of us have been saying for years: decades of progressive judicial activism have destroyed the constitutional impediments to any legislation, however intrusive or insane.

The federal government is no longer limited to enumerated powers. And people are comfortable enough with that to quit paying lip service to the old notion.

Beagle on June 30, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Something’s been bothering me about Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, etc., but I couldn’t put my finger on it. Driving yesterday, it came to me:

Why do all of these justices/nominees not remind me of anyone I know? Why are they all from some East-Coast intellectual hothouse that has no relationship to real Americans?

I looked up Harriet Miers (Bush’s ‘failed’ nominee), and saw that one of the biggest objections to her was that she went to Southern Methodist for her J.D., and not to Harvard, Yale, or another Ivy-League school.

Doesn’t this prejudice – at long last – mean that all modern justices will be academic East-Coasters – read “Democrat Liberals?”

Doesn’t this nominational guarantee an East Coast court that doesn’t not represent the lifestyles, upbringings or interests of Southerners, Mid-Westerners, etc.?

Why can’t we have a justice renowned for COMMON SENSE and for a normal lifestyle OUTSIDE of the Ivy-League/East-Coast intellectual hothouse?

Shouldn’t representative government – to an adequate degree – also apply to the judicial branch? If these justices are to make decisions that overthrow the actions of duly elected congressmen, presidents and public elections (think, Prop. 187 in CA), shouldn’t they be in touch with non-Ivy-League Americans?

This really bothers me – that the judicial branch – the most imperial branch of our government, must, by mutual congressional fiat of both parties, be filled only with people with an East-Coast mindset that bears little relation to the lives of Americans like me in states like Louisiana and Texas.

I’d like to take Kagan duck hunting and to a crawfish boil and see if she could relate to/interact with anyone. If she can’t, why should she represent me?

Notwithstanding the fact that she has never even tried a Federal case, this is the long and short of my thoughts on Kagan.

cane_loader on June 30, 2010 at 10:41 AM

“Doesn’t this nominational PREJUDICE guarantee an East Coast court that DOES NOT represent the lifestyles, upbringings or interests of Southerners, Mid-Westerners, etc.?

PIMF

cane_loader on June 30, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Seriously, why do we even hold these hearings?

That’s a question I’ve been asking myself a lot lately. It’s already been decided that she’ll be confirmed. Why bother with this when she’s barely answering questions anyway? What’s being gained?

Esthier on June 30, 2010 at 10:47 AM

Can some one post the names of all the people in congress that are on the confirmation commitee, so every one call them every day, We need to apply constant pressure on them.
If you get a min call , call as often as you can so they know that how WE THE PEOPLE feel.
Congress believes they are insulated from the people, all that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

ColdWarrior57 on June 30, 2010 at 11:09 AM

So the Republicans won’t filibuster, in essence promoting a hard core socialist to the Supreme Court for life where she can do damage for decades.

So Big Brother can dictate what I eat under the Commerce Clause. Soon, they’ll regulate my breathing under EPA rules for carbon dioxide. And without repeal, they will govern my body and my health under ObamaCare.

Karl Marx would be proud.

olesparkie on June 30, 2010 at 11:14 AM

and, in certain cases, the Republican mainstream too.

Yep, Bill Krystal(SP?), (of Fox News and the Weekly Standard), supported the Kelo Verses City of New London decision allowing government to confiscate private property and give it to their developer friends, (which finance their campaigns and provide under-the-table bonus money).

FloatingRock on June 30, 2010 at 11:39 AM

…Bill said at the time that it would be good for business; a very corporatist attitude. Since then I’ve been very disappointed he’s still on Fox News’ panels after all these years.

FloatingRock on June 30, 2010 at 11:40 AM

I’ve battled an eating disorder since I was 16. We’re talking starvation, diet pills and the whole bit. By the time I was almost 22 I was so addicted to exercise that missing one day would send me into the type of withdrawal that a druggie trying to come clean would get. That year I also got shingles. At almost 40-with God’s help-I’ve fought some of my way out of the ‘food hell’ that I used to live in.
I DARE Kagan and her ilk to try to send me and those like me back to that eating disordered nightmare.
Be assured-the Kagan’s of the world will blink before I do.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 30, 2010 at 12:04 PM

The question should have been can congress fine us if we dont buy the “right” healthy foods. The precedent of regulating the growing of wheat because of the commerce clause has not been extended to making a penalty for not buying the right kind of wheat or wheat at all.

PrezHussein on June 30, 2010 at 12:12 PM

Is it just me, or does Kagan look like Jon Lovitz in drag?

Ward Cleaver on June 30, 2010 at 12:20 PM

She shouldn’t allowed to be dog catcher, let alone a justice
Money Quote:

Hatch: “Did you write that memo?”

Kagan: “With respect, I don’t think that’s what happened here.”

Kagan says “the document is certainly in my hand-writing. I don’t know if the document is the product of a conversation I had with them . . .”

ConservativePartyNow on June 30, 2010 at 12:35 PM

I get a little pissy about crap Referees in college ball normal season..

This is a perpetual National Championship bowl game.. If Kagan doesn’t know, or decides to bend the rules, we are not going to be happy campers with her officiating.

Jason Gillman on June 30, 2010 at 1:16 PM

I’m sorry if this offend someone but everytime i see Kagan she remind me of those poor kids with down syndrome.
Falz on June 30, 2010 at 10:28 AM

My daughter with Down syndrome is not only prettier than Kagan, she’d make a MUCH better Supreme Court Justice…..

TeresainFortWorth on June 30, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Why does she even bother dodging the question? It’s not like there’s a penalty when a leftist lies, like Sotomayer did in her testimony (re: 2nd Amendment & individual interpretation).

Merovign on June 30, 2010 at 3:34 PM

http://article.nationalreview.com/437296/kagans-abortion-distortion/shannen-w-coffin?page=1

ouch…is there an equivalent to witness tampering in these kid of proceedings?

Fighton03 on June 29, 2010 at 11:49 PM

I see what you did there. :-)

My daughter with Down syndrome is not only prettier than Kagan, she’d make a MUCH better Supreme Court Justice…

TeresainFortWorth on June 30, 2010 at 2:51 PM

I’ve never had the privilege of meeting either you or your daughter, but I’m 100% sure you’re right on both counts!

Mary in LA on June 30, 2010 at 3:50 PM

A historic moment ? You bet !

First 10-year-old boy to be nominated for SCOTUS!

cableguy615 on June 30, 2010 at 8:07 PM

In other words, the constitution is an elastic band that stretches as far as her political idioceology will allow, and snaps back — when it suits her.

Firefly_76 on June 29, 2010 at 10:34 PM

fixed

cableguy615 on July 1, 2010 at 9:18 AM

Comment pages: 1 2