Republicans Against Laws that Save Lives and the Environment

From my perspective as a former Republican from a family that largely voted Republican, the descent of the Party into something fairly vile is disturbing to watch. Yes, there is still the mantra of smaller government and fiscal constraint - not that either actually occurred under Chimperator Bush - but more and more the true agenda seems to be about cutting away restraints that hold back the baser prejudices and callousness of businesses and individuals. Particularly restraints on racism and religious based discrimination. The New York Times has an interesting editorial that looks at the GOP agenda in the context of the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court and the GOP fixation on defeating federal controls that protect citizens from rapacious corporations and religious demagogues. One focus to the GOP is to defeat federal regulations under the Commerce Clause. Yes, health care reform is one target, but the Commerce Clause also provides a basis for passage of laws such as ENDA (if and when that ever happens). Here are some column highlights:
*
Listen carefully as the votes on Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court are taken beginning this week. Most court nominations are about judicial philosophy or social issues, but Ms. Kagan’s has become a flashpoint for a much larger debate about the fundamental role of American government.
*
[D]ozens of Senate Republicans are ready to vote against her, and many are citing her interpretation of the commerce clause of the Constitution, the one that says Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the states.
*
The clause was the legal basis for any number of statutes of enormous benefit to society. It is why we have the Clean Air Act. The Clean Water Act. The Endangered Species Act. The Fair Labor Standards Act, setting a minimum wage and limiting child labor. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, outlawing segregation in the workplace and in public accommodations. In cases like these, the Supreme Court has said Congress can regulate activities that have a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce, even if they are not directly business-related.
*
[T]he most urgent current test of government power is now slowly making its way through the legal system to the Supreme Court. Twenty states have joined lawsuits saying the national health care law is unconstitutional, particularly the provision requiring health insurance. Lawmakers, anticipating the challenge, explicitly inserted a line in the law that the insurance mandate “substantially affects interstate commerce.” They also say it is based on the government’s fundamental power to tax. It is hard to see how the current court will disagree.
*
That is not stopping Senate Republicans from raising a huge ideological fuss, sending a message not only to Ms. Kagan but to the court as a whole. It is why Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma asked Ms. Kagan a seemingly silly hypothetical about the constitutionality of a law requiring Americans to eat three vegetables and fruits a day. Would that violate the commerce clause, he asked?
*
Make no mistake that such a vote is simply about her, or about President Obama. A vote against the commerce clause is a vote against some of the best things that government has done for the better part of a century, and some of the best things that lie ahead.