...Is there a principle here? Is there a way to read these opinions as consistent with a principle?

• ...missing from both opinions was the argument that I believed would win this case: That if there is a principled reason why Congress's power is limited in the context of the commerce clause (and elsewhere), then that reason applies even more strongly in the context of the copyright clause..
• The puzzle in the case was the silent 5 — the 5 justices who have consistently argued that Congress's power is limited; that enumerated powers must be read in a way that makes sense of those limits...
• It had never even crossed my mind that these 5 justices would simply duck the issue...
• But as I read these opinions, I realize the hardest part for me is elsewhere. I have spent more than a decade of my life teaching constitutional lawÑand teaching it in a particularly unfashionable way. As any of my students will attest, my aim is always to say that we should try to understand what the court does in a consistently principled way. We should learn to read what the court does, not as the actions of politicians, but as people who are applying the law as principle, in as principled a manner as they can. But as I read these opinions, I realize the hardest part for me is elsewhere. I have spent more than a decade of my life teaching constitutional law—and teaching it in a particularly unfashionable way. As any of my students will attest, my aim is always to say that we should try to understand what the court does in a consistently principled way. We should learn to read what the court does, not as the actions of politicians, but as people who are applying the law as principle, in as principled a manner as they can. There are exceptions, no doubt... And especially in times of crisis, one must expect mistakes. But as OJÕs trial is not a measure of the jury system, Bush v. Gore is not a measure of the Supreme Court. It is the ordinary case one needs to explain. And explain it as a matter of principle. IÕm not sure how to do that here. I donÕt see what the argument is that would show why it is the CourtÕs role to police CongressÕs power to protect states, but not to protect the public domain. I donÕt see the argument, and none of the five made it. Nor have any of the advocates on the other side identified what that principle is.

Clearly this was not about principle. Larry's unfashionable independent variable is clearly a dependent one with this court. I don't know what other conclusion to draw from what Larry's saying here. I suspect that a variety of dependently variable principles contributed to the Silent Five's decisions. Finally, they pulled it out of the seats of their robes and moved on.