I thought you would be back by now actually.

Anyway that really killed whatever respect people had for Scalia as an originalist. He’s using “originalism” as a way of getting to his social conservative positions.

Clarence Thomas scares me, his position is so radical that the only person even more extreme than him is arguably Bork and Bork doesn’t “believe” in the 9th Amendment in the sense that he doesn’t think there are any unenumerate rights despite the 9th Amendment and the freaking legislative history behind it.

Ah yes, the great state of Delaware =P

you know, that’s the thing. What the majority were prepared to find was precisely the thing that most conservatives like to mock Kirby about. Branding him a “judicial activist” for his opinions that the interpretation of the constitution has to change with the times, it turns out ironically that he is the true conservative in this case.

What I found most interesting was that judges like Heydon and Crennan were prepared to find that because the idea of what corporations would be involved in has expanded since Federation, so the corporations power should be expanded also.

Given how conservative and originalist most of the current bench are, I was most surprised by that aspect of the decision.

actually no, there’s a long history to this. you can find the summary here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporations_Act_2001

as to whether it is annoying or not, you might want to consider the situation in the US. Corporations law is state based in the US, so you have 51 different corporations laws in 51 different states.

Personally I would consider that a good thing, as the legislators in each state would face competitive pressure with those from other states not to make laws which are too onerous or business-unfriendly.

It’s no coincidence that most large corps in the US are registered in the State of Delaware.

anyway, in relation to the case in point, before this decision, were corporations governed by different rules in different states?

from a commercial aspect, i’d find that very annoying if i were to set up business in australia. but that’s just me.

Hello! I didn’t know you were in the US!

anyway, yes, I have to agree that the way the SCOTUS has interpreted the commerce clause is ridiculous. Only Clarence Thomas has been consistent. In the Raich case, regarding the growing of marijuana domestically for medical purposes, even a supposed conservative like Scalia had no qualms about extending the Commerce Clause to cover such cases. Justice Clarence Thomas on the other hand expressed disbelief as to how growing marijuana privately for medical purposes can fall within ‘interstate commerce’.

the problem is exacerbated here in Australia because the separation of powers is not along the same lines as in the US: we have a Westminster parliamentary system. The executive is made up of members of parliament, hence the Executive and the Legislative branches of government are practically commingled. Only the judiciary is truly separate from the other arms of government.