Separately, Senator Tom Coburn was the only senator to hold Kagan's feet to the fire. He posed a hypothetical about the limits of the Commerce Clause: can the federal government mandate citizens eat fruits and vegetables every day? Kagan got out of it by endorsing the Supreme Court jurisprudence that the Commerce Clause does not apply to "non-economic activity"—but of course, nearly everything counts as economic activity under the left's version of the Commerce Clause, where all Congress would have to do pass this law is recite "findings" that the failure to eat fruits and vegetables had a deleterious effect on the nation's economy. [YouTube; Politico; LA Times]
Copland on Kagan
Related Entries:
- HR 5
- Wherein George Soros wastes his money
- The myth of the pro-business Supreme Court (continued)
- Dahlia Lithwick does it again
- D.C. Circuit Upholds "Minimum Essential Coverage Provision"
- Obamacare SCOTUS-bound?
- Around the web, August 15
- More thoughts on Caylee's Law
- Somin on federalism and tort reform
- Around the web, May 23
- The constitutionality of HR 5
- Around the web, April 14
- Around the web, March 9
- Tort reform and federalism
- Judge Vinson strikes down PPACA
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Laura Eyi Press Officer, Manhattan Institute leyi@manhattan-institute.org |



