I had thought of saying in an earlier exchange regarding Justice Scalia that he's not even the one that most modern liberals should be afraid of. Now I wish I had said it and looked like a more accurate prognosticator than an election day exit poll.
By making "May it be!" the title of the thread are you indicating that you are in favor this move?
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
I would have to say yes. Even beyond just who would be Chief Justice or ideological reasons, he has some very innovative ideas on the Priviledges and Immunities Clause in the 14th Amendment.
Plus, he agrees with most constitutional scholars that a reexamination of Lochner is in order. Now if Bush would nominted Janice Rogers Brown, he'd have two votes already to start a movement on that front.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Oh, and I hope that such an elevation never happens.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Janice Rogers Brown...is she from California?
Or rather, Caleeefornia.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
It still hurts when people say that.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Yes, she was (is?) on the Supreme Court there. I know Bush nominated her for the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but I can't remember if he recess appointed her.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Now, I'm no lawyer, but from skimming the first few paragraphs I'd say Lochner vs New York basically says that if an employer want to contract people to work for more hours than might be considered healthy, then that's OK as the employer has to right to earn a living? And your proiblem with this is what, exactly?
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Wait, I got it exactly backwards. They'd like to see its ideas taken seriously again. Sorry for the confusion. Lots of constitutional law professors (keep in mind they're largely liberal) have problems with it and don't think the Court reexamining it would be such a bad thing.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Lee: let me quote from my Emmanuel's Constitutional Law what I think they might like to see more of in modern juriprudence
quote: Close fit: First, [the majority opinion] required a very close "fit" between the staute and its objectives. In the majority's words, there had to be a "real and substantial" relationship between the statute and the goals which it was to serve. This tight fit was absent in Lochner because bakers could have been protected by less restrictive measures, e.g., more frequent inspections, required bathrooms, etc.
Limited objectives: Second, only certain legislative objectives were acceptable. Regulation of health and safety was permissible, but readjustment of economic power or economic resources was not. Thus, to the extent that the NY law in Lochner was merely a "labor law" which readjusted bargaining power, rather than a true health regulation, it served an impermissible objective.
No serious scholar today doubts that safety regulations like that in Lochner were good, it's more a question of whether such regulation was closet econo-industrial tinkering. I think that's what they don't like. It goes along with their opinion of the Commerce Clause jurisprudence from the 1930s to the 1990s.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:There is no reasonable ground, on the score of health, for interfering with the liberty of the person or the right of free contract, by determining the hours of labor, in the occupation of a baker. Nor can a law limiting such hours be justified a a health law to safeguard the public health, or the health of the individuals following that occupation.
Section 110 of the labor law of the State of New York, providing that no employes shall be required or permitted to work in bakeries more than sixty hours in a week, or ten hours a day, is not a legitimate exercise of the police power of the State, but an unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract in relation to labor, and, as such, it is in conflict with, and void under, the Federal Constitution.
So. . . The NY labour law said that if people didn't work too long, then they wouldn't get tired and have accidents. Lochner - and the Supreme Court - felt that there were better ways (of ensuring people didn't have accidents) than requiring them to go to bed early? 8)
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Without reading the case again, what they're getting at in that quote is that they did not believe the legislature when they said they were regulating those hours for health reasons. The "there is no reasonable ground, on the score of health" I think the experts read as meaning something like "...There is no way you can dress up what is a labor law as a health law and interfere with..."
But you are right about the Supreme Court not deferring to the fact-finding of the legislature. Emmanuels briefly notes that they didn't. Neither side is optimally situated to find facts though, so that doesn't really weigh in favor of either side.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
But in this case I'd say there's very little difference between the two. Working 60+ hours a week isn't necessarily healthy; and if the employer requires the worker to do so. . . Shouldn't there be some protection for the employee?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Just to make sure I got this.
Mr. Bush should elevate Justice Thomas to Chief Justice and appoint Justice Brown to the Court as an Associate Justice.
Your conservative colors are showing.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
As I'm reading it (tired and bleery eyed), the Supreme Court was saying that 60+ hours a week was OK as long as you were making the conditions you were working in during those 60 hours more healthy.
I'm not defending their factual conclusion here. It would probably have come out differently today. What people like about the decision is the idea that in a free(r) market society, the optimal economic powers of parties will find an equilibrium without government trying to centrally plan. If you start using pretexts like health and safety to redistribute wealth from one sector of society to another, you are increasing the magnitude of the same problem that brought down socialism.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Jay: I would label myself a "pragmatic conservative." I see something of value in all strains of it. E.g., traditionalist, religious, neo-, and libertarian conservatisms. As far as I can tell, no camp has gotten the whole picture. But my own reading of it all, the ideas the different camps have implemented have done a better job of making the nation wealthier, more secure, and more able to provide its citizens with the room for self-fulfillment (however you define that) than competing ideologies that typically are grouped in "The Left."
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Then this comes down to the same old thing, the conservative fear that any attempt at legislating for employee protection is in fact aimed at redistribution of wealth. This is why such a low percentage of service industry workers have any sort of trade union membership, quite often at the behest of the employer. Granted, it doesn't help that all too often trade unions HAVE exhibited more interest in advancing socialist policies when all they really need to do is look out for the welfate of their members a bit better!
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Well, look, we've been needing a second token conservative since Rob ... well, since Rob went wherever.
I say, welcome!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: But in this case I'd say there's very little difference between the two. Working 60+ hours a week isn't necessarily healthy; and if the employer requires the worker to do so. . . Shouldn't there be some protection for the employee?
Gee, Republicans are in favor of allowing business to determine how many hours an employee must work to stay employed?
I....i'm shocked that our noble President would side with big business over the working man!
Particularly after all those stump speaches where he talked about making life better for the adverage american!
Shocked, I say! And after he rose to greatness from a poor blue-colar family too...
This is a holdover from waaay back when the robberbarons were de-clawed by the government and basic workers protections were installed. Next thing you know, they'll try to eliminate overtime! How crazy would that be?
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Lee: socialism is a tendency with most labor unions, but not as much as with American unions. I can't find it, but the colorful example that you see was the president of the AFL-CIO response to a congressman's question of what the unions ultimately wanted: We want more. They never quite embraced socialism like unions did elsewhere in the world.
Snay: thanks! I hope everyone enjoys these debates as much as I do.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
�an evening star shines down upon you?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
It does? Then the fucker will rue the day.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Lee, if you would just believe then you would find your way.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
See? You can take the boy out of the cult, but. . . Oh, wait, I've done that one. 8)
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Even though you are a bit thick, a promise still lives within you now.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
What? *looks down* Aaargh! Get it off! Get it off!! GET IT OFF!!! *runs in circles then into wall and knocks himself out*
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Oh! Poor Lee, how far you are from home.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Woe is me.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Hmm.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Shut up, the pair of you.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Bleh, darkness falls.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
The madness begins again.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Well stop walking such a lonely road, then, glass earl.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
But all the lights that light the way are blinding!
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Precisely, then you can journey on to light the day, and when you arise you'll find the sun! You kill two girls with one stone!
I think I've met my Dax.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Then the worm has turned.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Geez, the way this page is headed I think its time to roll out the ultimate debating weapon known to man.
Nice link! I don't see debate here though, I see providence. Cause and effect. Matter and antimatter. Ham and beef.
When the night is overcome, Lee's heart will be true.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Mornie ut�li�. Last piece of the riddle.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I thought so too.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
If that's truespeak, you are the worst 'tease.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I clicked on this link thinking it was a cool Enya/Lord of the Rings thread - I didn't realise it was in the Flameboard section - I don't come in here.
Morni� alanti�
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
See, now why would we go and do a thing like that, luring in honest australians into virgin territory.
Well, maybe something good will come out of it in the end.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Or is that honest virgins into Australian territory? Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
But you're already there.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
He's honest?
...well, he did admit to being an Aussie... Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Which is far more shameful. Being a virgin is at least curable.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Even for Andrew?
(sorry andrew, it was too good to resist that one)
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Slut. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Whenever I can be, yes.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
$$$$$$ spoiler warning $$$$$$
Moreso than Justice Scalia?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)