In reference to the Cohen editorial mentioned below.

Among Cohen’s more egregious sleights-of-hand is to suggest Roberts’s confirmation would severely restrict federal power. “Having one more justice who supports weakening Congress could make an enormous difference.” Yet Justice O’Connor has voted to restrict federal power in every recent commerce clause case, including the medical marijuana case, expressing a far more restrictive view of Congressional power than anything Roberts has ever written. So Cohen ignores O’Connor’s votes in Commerce Clause cases, instead focusing on sovereign immunity and statutory interpretation cases in which she voted with the federal government. In other words, Cohen’s argument boils down to “Because Roberts suggested he agrees with O’Connor here, he might disagree with O’Connor over there.”

This isn’t enough for Cohen, who goes on to make the ridiculous charge that “If Judge Roberts votes with the most conservative justices, the court could start to revive the spirit of the Lochner era, gutting a wide array of laws that protect Americans from harm.” This is just ridiculous — and Cohen’s too smart not to know it. Modest limits on congressional authority to regulate local matters hardly amounts to “Lochnerism.” The Lochner court invalidated a wide array of federal, state and local legislation. The federalism cases, on the other hand, limit federal regulatory authority while preserving — and in some cases enhancing — state and local regulatory authority. I’d go on, but I have work to do, so go read the Althouse post.