SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

User avatar
haus
Posts: 2049
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:35 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by haus » Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:44 am

The pages of argument around the meaning of the word “so” in Van Buren seem like bullshit, although I am not opposed to the general outcome of limiting the applications of the computer fraud and abuse act based on a legitimately authorized user failing to adhere to an internal policy.

User avatar
MKC
Posts: 5022
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:46 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by MKC » Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:47 pm


User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 14619
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:43 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Johannes » Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:32 pm


User avatar
ymmv
pregnant with a better version of myself
Posts: 21605
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:24 am
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by ymmv » Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:07 pm

what is with the impulse to hagiographize these assholes. just lawyerly tendency towards sycophantic prestige-hounding taken to its natural extreme?

Story
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:56 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Story » Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:25 pm

Johannes wrote:
Mon Jun 21, 2021 10:32 pm
The implication that there was a remote possibility that Kavanaugh could have become the next Souter is laughable. Have you ever read any of his DC Circuit opinions?

User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 14619
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:43 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Johannes » Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:30 pm

Hmm my takeaway was the opposite emphasis on thin skinned rapist.

Like dude writes an opinion liberals agree with, and is still being called a rapist. Gonna be a hilarious career and infamy for him.

I see your interpretation now though. So dunno.

Story
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:56 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Story » Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:26 am

I think you can make both inferences:

(1) He wrote a good opinion.
(2) He’s still a lying rapist.

And I think one’s able to hold both views and still be consistent.

User avatar
Danger Zone
Moderator
Posts: 4033
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:34 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Danger Zone » Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:38 am

He was never going to be Souter no matter how mean the libs were, is the point. Why give him any benefit of the doubt

User avatar
pancakes3
Posts: 6906
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:00 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by pancakes3 » Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:50 am

idk if striking down indentured servitude is much of a lib win. especially when, based on that excerpt, his reasoning seems to be on antitrust grounds instead of human dignity or whatever bullshit Kennedy would have authored. he's basically saying "it doesn't make sense to limit the ability to exploit college athletes to the NCAA when there's a whole world of corporate endeavors that can also make money off these kids, and all we have to do is break these kids off a fraction of a percent of the potential gains.

Like, EA sports getting to bring back NCAA Football is at least $50 million in revenue. And a lot's changed since 2014. With microtransactions, they could pull $100 mil. and that's one single product for one company.

User avatar
21157015576609
Posts: 1406
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:35 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by 21157015576609 » Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:54 am

pancakes3 wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:50 am
idk if striking down indentured servitude is much of a lib win. especially when, based on that excerpt, his reasoning seems to be on antitrust grounds instead of human dignity or whatever bullshit Kennedy would have authored. he's basically saying "it doesn't make sense to limit the ability to exploit college athletes to the NCAA when there's a whole world of corporate endeavors that can also make money off these kids, and all we have to do is break these kids off a fraction of a percent of the potential gains.

Like, EA sports getting to bring back NCAA Football is at least $50 million in revenue. And a lot's changed since 2014. With microtransactions, they could pull $100 mil. and that's one single product for one company.
I mean, it was an antitrust lawsuit?

User avatar
haus
Posts: 2049
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:35 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by haus » Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:22 am

21157015576609 wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:54 am
pancakes3 wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:50 am
idk if striking down indentured servitude is much of a lib win. especially when, based on that excerpt, his reasoning seems to be on antitrust grounds instead of human dignity or whatever bullshit Kennedy would have authored. he's basically saying "it doesn't make sense to limit the ability to exploit college athletes to the NCAA when there's a whole world of corporate endeavors that can also make money off these kids, and all we have to do is break these kids off a fraction of a percent of the potential gains.

Like, EA sports getting to bring back NCAA Football is at least $50 million in revenue. And a lot's changed since 2014. With microtransactions, they could pull $100 mil. and that's one single product for one company.
I mean, it was an antitrust lawsuit?
I thought we had all given up on expecting SCOTUS to be bound by silly things such as what type of suit they are dealing with. In recent years we have had decisions that tell us that a 70 foot cross is not a religious symbol and medical insurance does not count as interstate commerce (unlike things like growing wheat in your yard for your own consumption).

It is a free fire zone once it lands at the court.

User avatar
beep
Posts: 3611
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:05 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by beep » Tue Jun 22, 2021 5:56 pm

these are the types of takes i expect from nonlawyers on twitter (in other words, agree w/ numbers). there are def situations where the court goes wacky, but saving constructions aside the Roberts court is generally pretty big on party presentation (see eg. Sinening Smith) and i don't see any universe where this op would've been an Obergefell even if you still had Kennedy on the court. Pretty much agree with Josh Blackman on Kav (just about the only thing Blackman is right about) otherwise, though.

User avatar
Stranger
Posts: 3000
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:19 am

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Stranger » Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:54 pm

haus wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:22 am
(unlike things like growing wheat in your yard for your own consumption).
My apologies that you're the one I'm unloading this pet peeve on, but:

Why in the heck does everyone want to read that case as "for his own consumption"? The dude was growing wheat to feed to cows to produce milk that he sold on the open market. We're not talking about a homesteader, here, but a full-on commercial farmer trying to skirt regulations on things he needed to input so that he could increase his economic gains on the output of his farm.

User avatar
MKC
Posts: 5022
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:46 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by MKC » Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:00 pm

Stranger wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:54 pm
haus wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:22 am
(unlike things like growing wheat in your yard for your own consumption).
My apologies that you're the one I'm unloading this pet peeve on, but:

Why in the heck does everyone want to read that case as "for his own consumption"? The dude was growing wheat to feed to cows to produce milk that he sold on the open market. We're not talking about a homesteader, here, but a full-on commercial farmer trying to skirt regulations on things he needed to input so that he could increase his economic gains on the output of his farm.
It was 23 acres. He grew the wheat and fed the wheat to animals on his farm. The wheat never left the farm. Yet somehow, growing food for your own livestock on your own land is "interstate commerce." It's bullshit and renders the "interstate" part of "interstate commerce" meaningless.

User avatar
haus
Posts: 2049
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:35 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by haus » Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:02 pm

Stranger wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:54 pm
haus wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:22 am
(unlike things like growing wheat in your yard for your own consumption).
My apologies that you're the one I'm unloading this pet peeve on, but:

Why in the heck does everyone want to read that case as "for his own consumption"? The dude was growing wheat to feed to cows to produce milk that he sold on the open market. We're not talking about a homesteader, here, but a full-on commercial farmer trying to skirt regulations on things he needed to input so that he could increase his economic gains on the output of his farm.
:D

No worries.

But I am glad that the pharmacies in the country are all local and do not participate in interstate commerce.

User avatar
Stranger
Posts: 3000
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:19 am

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Stranger » Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:52 pm

MKC wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:00 pm
Stranger wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:54 pm
haus wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:22 am
(unlike things like growing wheat in your yard for your own consumption).
My apologies that you're the one I'm unloading this pet peeve on, but:

Why in the heck does everyone want to read that case as "for his own consumption"? The dude was growing wheat to feed to cows to produce milk that he sold on the open market. We're not talking about a homesteader, here, but a full-on commercial farmer trying to skirt regulations on things he needed to input so that he could increase his economic gains on the output of his farm.
It was 23 acres. He grew the wheat and fed the wheat to animals on his farm. The wheat never left the farm. Yet somehow, growing food for your own livestock on your own land is "interstate commerce." It's bullshit and renders the "interstate" part of "interstate commerce" meaningless.
And I've engaged in interstate commerce from a livestock operation on half that acreage. The holding's pretty far from bullshit, and the mischaracterization of what he was doing with his farm feels like a deliberate (even bad-faith) attempt to make the interstate commerce clause mysterious and confounding.

ETA: I don't mean bad faith from MKC in particular. I mean bad faith from pretty much everyone involved in teaching this case that way.

User avatar
beep
Posts: 3611
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:05 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by beep » Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:09 pm

Stranger wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:52 pm
MKC wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:00 pm
Stranger wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:54 pm
haus wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:22 am
(unlike things like growing wheat in your yard for your own consumption).
My apologies that you're the one I'm unloading this pet peeve on, but:

Why in the heck does everyone want to read that case as "for his own consumption"? The dude was growing wheat to feed to cows to produce milk that he sold on the open market. We're not talking about a homesteader, here, but a full-on commercial farmer trying to skirt regulations on things he needed to input so that he could increase his economic gains on the output of his farm.
It was 23 acres. He grew the wheat and fed the wheat to animals on his farm. The wheat never left the farm. Yet somehow, growing food for your own livestock on your own land is "interstate commerce." It's bullshit and renders the "interstate" part of "interstate commerce" meaningless.
And I've engaged in interstate commerce from a livestock operation on half that acreage. The holding's pretty far from bullshit, and the mischaracterization of what he was doing with his farm feels like a deliberate (even bad-faith) attempt to make the interstate commerce clause mysterious and confounding.

ETA: I don't mean bad faith from MKC in particular. I mean bad faith from pretty much everyone involved in teaching this case that way.
Do you feel the same way about Gonzales v. Raich?

User avatar
Johannes
Posts: 14619
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:43 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Johannes » Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:56 pm

Yeah blackmans take does seem fine enough

There was a time when Judge Kavanaugh argued that Scalia's Morrison dissent should become the majority opinion. Now, he has had two occasions to cite it in seminal separation of powers cases. But instead, he hitched a ride on the Chief's wagon.

User avatar
Stranger
Posts: 3000
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:19 am

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Stranger » Tue Jun 22, 2021 9:07 pm

beep wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:09 pm
Stranger wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:52 pm
MKC wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:00 pm
Stranger wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:54 pm
haus wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:22 am
(unlike things like growing wheat in your yard for your own consumption).
My apologies that you're the one I'm unloading this pet peeve on, but:

Why in the heck does everyone want to read that case as "for his own consumption"? The dude was growing wheat to feed to cows to produce milk that he sold on the open market. We're not talking about a homesteader, here, but a full-on commercial farmer trying to skirt regulations on things he needed to input so that he could increase his economic gains on the output of his farm.
It was 23 acres. He grew the wheat and fed the wheat to animals on his farm. The wheat never left the farm. Yet somehow, growing food for your own livestock on your own land is "interstate commerce." It's bullshit and renders the "interstate" part of "interstate commerce" meaningless.
And I've engaged in interstate commerce from a livestock operation on half that acreage. The holding's pretty far from bullshit, and the mischaracterization of what he was doing with his farm feels like a deliberate (even bad-faith) attempt to make the interstate commerce clause mysterious and confounding.

ETA: I don't mean bad faith from MKC in particular. I mean bad faith from pretty much everyone involved in teaching this case that way.
Do you feel the same way about Gonzales v. Raich?
Look, what I'm pushing back on is the "OMG, it wasn't commercial!" argument. Wickard's use of wheat was absolutely commercial, because he was feeding it to livestock he raised for commercial purposes. The ruling's heavy-handed, and opened the door for Gonzalez v. Raich (wbich, yeah, goes too far, because it's regulating an activity with no commercial component whatsoever), but I'd have definitely at least concurred in the judgment on Wickard v. Filburn.

User avatar
MKC
Posts: 5022
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:46 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by MKC » Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:10 pm

Stranger wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 9:07 pm
beep wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:09 pm
Stranger wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:52 pm
MKC wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:00 pm
Stranger wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:54 pm
haus wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:22 am
(unlike things like growing wheat in your yard for your own consumption).
My apologies that you're the one I'm unloading this pet peeve on, but:

Why in the heck does everyone want to read that case as "for his own consumption"? The dude was growing wheat to feed to cows to produce milk that he sold on the open market. We're not talking about a homesteader, here, but a full-on commercial farmer trying to skirt regulations on things he needed to input so that he could increase his economic gains on the output of his farm.
It was 23 acres. He grew the wheat and fed the wheat to animals on his farm. The wheat never left the farm. Yet somehow, growing food for your own livestock on your own land is "interstate commerce." It's bullshit and renders the "interstate" part of "interstate commerce" meaningless.
And I've engaged in interstate commerce from a livestock operation on half that acreage. The holding's pretty far from bullshit, and the mischaracterization of what he was doing with his farm feels like a deliberate (even bad-faith) attempt to make the interstate commerce clause mysterious and confounding.

ETA: I don't mean bad faith from MKC in particular. I mean bad faith from pretty much everyone involved in teaching this case that way.
Do you feel the same way about Gonzales v. Raich?
Look, what I'm pushing back on is the "OMG, it wasn't commercial!" argument. Wickard's use of wheat was absolutely commercial, because he was feeding it to livestock he raised for commercial purposes. The ruling's heavy-handed, and opened the door for Gonzalez v. Raich (wbich, yeah, goes too far, because it's regulating an activity with no commercial component whatsoever), but I'd have definitely at least concurred in the judgment on Wickard v. Filburn.
Kind of just completely ignoring "among the several states" here. Or is that language superfluous?

User avatar
Stranger
Posts: 3000
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:19 am

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by Stranger » Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:46 pm

MKC wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:10 pm
Stranger wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 9:07 pm
beep wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:09 pm
Stranger wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:52 pm
MKC wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:00 pm
Stranger wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:54 pm
haus wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:22 am
(unlike things like growing wheat in your yard for your own consumption).
My apologies that you're the one I'm unloading this pet peeve on, but:

Why in the heck does everyone want to read that case as "for his own consumption"? The dude was growing wheat to feed to cows to produce milk that he sold on the open market. We're not talking about a homesteader, here, but a full-on commercial farmer trying to skirt regulations on things he needed to input so that he could increase his economic gains on the output of his farm.
It was 23 acres. He grew the wheat and fed the wheat to animals on his farm. The wheat never left the farm. Yet somehow, growing food for your own livestock on your own land is "interstate commerce." It's bullshit and renders the "interstate" part of "interstate commerce" meaningless.
And I've engaged in interstate commerce from a livestock operation on half that acreage. The holding's pretty far from bullshit, and the mischaracterization of what he was doing with his farm feels like a deliberate (even bad-faith) attempt to make the interstate commerce clause mysterious and confounding.

ETA: I don't mean bad faith from MKC in particular. I mean bad faith from pretty much everyone involved in teaching this case that way.
Do you feel the same way about Gonzales v. Raich?
Look, what I'm pushing back on is the "OMG, it wasn't commercial!" argument. Wickard's use of wheat was absolutely commercial, because he was feeding it to livestock he raised for commercial purposes. The ruling's heavy-handed, and opened the door for Gonzalez v. Raich (wbich, yeah, goes too far, because it's regulating an activity with no commercial component whatsoever), but I'd have definitely at least concurred in the judgment on Wickard v. Filburn.
Kind of just completely ignoring "among the several states" here. Or is that language superfluous?
Not ignoring it in the least. I'm just willing to see that an industrialized economy necessarily creates interstate markets in commodities, including wheat, meat, and milk. Dude wanted to opt out of market regulation by pretending his wheat wasn't part of the market, even though his competitors in the meat and milk markets were affected by the wheat regulations. That's some classical "I've got mine, to heck with you" libertarianism, and the Court was right to shut it down.

User avatar
BlendedUnicorn
Big Tent Energy
Posts: 15395
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by BlendedUnicorn » Tue Jun 22, 2021 11:01 pm

beep wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:09 pm
Stranger wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:52 pm
MKC wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 7:00 pm
Stranger wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 6:54 pm
haus wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:22 am
(unlike things like growing wheat in your yard for your own consumption).
My apologies that you're the one I'm unloading this pet peeve on, but:

Why in the heck does everyone want to read that case as "for his own consumption"? The dude was growing wheat to feed to cows to produce milk that he sold on the open market. We're not talking about a homesteader, here, but a full-on commercial farmer trying to skirt regulations on things he needed to input so that he could increase his economic gains on the output of his farm.
It was 23 acres. He grew the wheat and fed the wheat to animals on his farm. The wheat never left the farm. Yet somehow, growing food for your own livestock on your own land is "interstate commerce." It's bullshit and renders the "interstate" part of "interstate commerce" meaningless.
And I've engaged in interstate commerce from a livestock operation on half that acreage. The holding's pretty far from bullshit, and the mischaracterization of what he was doing with his farm feels like a deliberate (even bad-faith) attempt to make the interstate commerce clause mysterious and confounding.

ETA: I don't mean bad faith from MKC in particular. I mean bad faith from pretty much everyone involved in teaching this case that way.
Do you feel the same way about Gonzales v. Raich?
Yes. Bad law but constitutional IMO.

User avatar
MKC
Posts: 5022
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:46 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by MKC » Wed Jun 23, 2021 12:13 am

Stranger wrote:
Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:46 pm

Not ignoring it in the least. I'm just willing to see that an industrialized economy necessarily creates interstate markets in commodities, including wheat, meat, and milk. Dude wanted to opt out of market regulation by pretending his wheat wasn't part of the market, even though his competitors in the meat and milk markets were affected by the wheat regulations. That's some classical "I've got mine, to heck with you" libertarianism, and the Court was right to shut it down.
And this is where the divergence lies. One of the points of a federal system was to let people pick their state governments. (and related levels of regulation/taxation etc.)

Commerce Clause:
The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
This does not read to me like a grant of general regulatory power. It reads like the federal government gets to keep the states from fucking with each other. (Congress can say California can't tax imports from Texas and vice versa; Texas can't export poisonous products to California, that sort of thing)

As a whole, it looks like a clause empowering Congress to regulate trade between various sovereign states, not a grant of general regulatory power. That's why I have a problem with Wickard. It seems fundamentally at odds with this construction.

ETA: why wouldn't they have just said Congress has the right to regulate commerce if Wickard is right? Why even put "among the several states in there?

ETA2: The Supreme Court from before they decided that all the words in the commerce clause were useless besides "Congress shall have the power to regulate":
As used in the Constitution, the word ‘commerce’ is the equivalent of the phrase ‘intercourse for the purposes of trade,’ and includes transportation, purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities between the citizens of the different states. And the power to regulate commerce embraces the instruments by which commerce is carried on. Welton v. State of Missouri, 91 U.S. 275, 280, 23 L.Ed. 347; Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 211, 241, 20 S.Ct. 96, 44 L.Ed. 136; Hopkins v. United States, 171 U.S. 578, 597, 19 S.Ct. 40, 43 L.Ed. 290. In Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 177, 28 S.Ct. 277, 281, 52 L.Ed. 436, 13 Ann.Cas. 764, the phrase ‘Commerce among the several states' was defined as comprehending ‘traffic, intercourse, trade, navigation, communication, the transit of persons, and the transmission of messages by telegraph,—indeed, every species on commercial intercourse among the several states.’ In Veazie et al. v. Moor, 14 How. 568, 573, 574, 14 L.Ed. 545, this court, after saying that the phrase could never be applied to transactions wholly internal, significantly added: ‘Nor can it be properly concluded, that, because the products of domestic enterprise in agriculture or manufactures, or in the arts, may ultimately become the subjects of foreign commerce, that the control of the means or the encouragements by which enterprise is fostered and protected, is legitimately within the import of the phrase foreign commerce, or fairly implied *299 in any investiture of the power to regulate such commerce. A pretension as far reaching as this, would extend to contracts between citizen and citizen of the same State, would control the pursuits of the planter, the grazier, the manufacturer, the mechanic, the immense operations of the collieries and mines and furnaces of the country; for there is not one of these avocations, the results of which may not become the subjects of foreign commerce, and be borne either by turnpikes, canals, or railroads, from point to point within the several States, towards an ultimate destination, like the one above mentioned.’

The distinction between manufacture and commerce was discussed in Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1, 20, 21, 22, 9 S.Ct. 6, 10, 32 L.Ed. 346, and it was said:
‘No distinction is more popular to the common mind, or more clearly expressed in economic and political literature, than that between manufactures and commerce. Manufacture is transformation—the fashioning of raw materials into a change of form for use. The functions of commerce are different. * * * If it be held that the term includes the regulation of all such manufactures as are intended to be the subject of commercial transactions in the future, it is impossible to deny that it would **868 also include all productive industries that contemplate the same thing. The result would be that congress would be invested, to the exclusion of the states, with the power to regulate, not only manufacture, but also agriculture, horticulture, stock-raising, domestic fisheries, mining,—in short, every branch of human industry. For is there one of them that does not contemplate, more or less clearly, an interstate or foreign market? Does not the wheat-grower of the northwest, and the cotton-planter of the south, plant, cultivate, and harvest his crop with an eye on the prices at Liverpool, New York, and Chicago? The power being vested in congress and *300 denied to the states, it would follow as an inevitable result that the duty would devolve on congress to regulate all of these delicate, multiform, and vital interests,—interests which in their nature are, and must be, local in all the details of their successful management.’
And then, as though foreseeing the present controversy, the opinion proceeds:

‘Any movement towards the establishment of rules of production in this vast country, with its many different climates and opportunities, could only be at the sacrifice of the peculiar advantages of a large part of the localities in it, if not of every one of them. On the other hand, any movement towards the local, detailed, and incongruous legislation required by such an interpretation would be about the widest possible departure from the declared object of the clause in question. Nor this alone. Even in the exercise of the power contended for, congress would be confined to the regulation, not of certain branches of industry, however numerous, but to those instances in each and every branch where the producer contemplated an interstate market. * * * A situation more paralyzing to the state governments, and more provocative of conflicts between the general government and the states, and less likely to have been what the framers of the constitution intended, it would be difficult to imagine.’

Chief Justice Fuller, speaking for this court in United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1, 12, 13, 15 S.Ct. 249, 253, 39 L.Ed. 325, said:

‘Doubtless the power to control the manufacture of a given thing involves, in a certain sense, the control of its disposition, but this is a secondary, and not the primary, sense; and, although the exercise of that power may result in bringing the operation of commerce into play, it does not control it, and affects it only incidentally and indirectly. Commerce succeeds to manufacture, and is not a part of it. * * *
*301 ‘It is vital that the independence of the commercial power and of the police power, and the delimitation between them, however sometimes perplexing, should always be recognized and observed, for, while the one furnishes the strongest bond of union, the other is essential to the preservation of the autonomy of the states as required by our dual form of government; and acknowledged evils, however grave and urgent they may appear to be, had better be borne, than the risk be run, in the effort to suppress them, of more serious consequences by resort to expedients of even doubtful constitutionality. * * *

‘The regulation of commerce applies to the subjects of commerce, and not to matters of internal police. Contracts to buy, sell, or exchange goods to be transported among the several states, the transportation and its instrumentalities, and articles bought, sold, or exchanged for the purposes of such transit among the states, or put in the way of transit, may be regulated; but this is because they form part of interstate trade or commerce. The fact that an article is manufactured for export to another state does not of itself make it an article of interstate commerce, and the intent of the manufacturer does not determine the time when the article or product passes from the control of the state and belongs to commerce.’
Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 298–301, 56 S. Ct. 855, 867–68, 80 L. Ed. 1160 (1936)
Last edited by MKC on Wed Jun 23, 2021 11:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
haus
Posts: 2049
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:35 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by haus » Wed Jun 23, 2021 10:34 am


User avatar
BlendedUnicorn
Big Tent Energy
Posts: 15395
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:13 pm

Re: SCOTUS and Other Big Cases

Post by BlendedUnicorn » Wed Jun 23, 2021 10:39 am

Second biggest 1A case of the year IMO.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests