3 ms·
Such an absurd ruling, but none of the current supremes have the stones to overturn it
by newZWhoDis 4y ago
Such an absurd ruling, but none of the current supremes have the stones to overturn it
- darkmarmot 4y agoClarence Thomas actually dissented on this and said it was crazy.
- kevviiinn 4y agoHe's right. Saying that the federal government can regulate how much a farmer can grow to feed their own animals because it would somehow impact interstate commerce is entirely unhinged It's the most incredible form of mental gymnastics in order to grab power
- mananaysiempre 4y agoLooking from the outside, US constitutional law has always seemed like this absurd tangle of kabbalistic reinterpretations, but it seems important to mention that AFAIK the federal ban on child labour (whether or not its products cross state lines) rests on similarly twisty reasoning. (Things like environmental protections as well, probably, but this looks to have been the first example.) “Let’s allow the federal government to regulate whatever” is a value-neutral weapon.
- kevviiinn 4y agoI don't think its value neutral when drug laws allowed slavery to essentially continue and has destroyed countless communities and families
- mananaysiempre 4y ago- Activities staying inside state lines should be subject to federal regulation so that children don’t die due to breathing in coal dust at work, or so that people don’t get poisoned by lead in the air and water; - Activities staying inside state lines should not be subject to federal regulation so that people don’t get sent to prison in droves for what is essentially a medical problem. Seems to me like federal regulation is fairly value-neutral, as in usable in equal measure for both good and evil. The tricky part is deciding which is which, of course.
- calvinmorrison 4y agowell that's the issue with common law versus civil law. Literally reinterpretations, past references etc. It's not just what the men who penned it meant, it's how the court interpreted.