6 ms·

> Gorsuch wrote for a majority that included Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett. This is a super-weird combination of

> Gorsuch wrote for a majority that included Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett. This is a super-weird combination of Justices, which includes those from the furthest right and furthest left. As the Volokh Conspiracy noted: > Justice Gorsuch wrote for the Court, but only two justices (Thomas and Barrett) agreed with him in full. In fact, the Justices were quite splintered. [1] The third-listed takeaway is related to this odd clumping of Justics. > First, the opinion signals a narrowing of the Dormant Commerce Clause to an anti-discrimination rule, as opposed to a broader protection for the frictionless movement of goods and services across state lines. Second, the opinion provides a bright green light for states to adopt environmental laws that regulate goods and services based upon how they are produced (e.g. their carbon intensity, etc.). California already leads the way with such laws, and this decision should make it more difficult for business groups to challenge such measures. Third, the decision complicates the already questionable "Roberts Court is pro-business" narrative, by demonstrating (yet again) that when conservative jurisprudential commitments conflict with corporate interests, the former prevail. Combined with decisions such as Virginia Uranium v. Warren, National Pork Producers shows that business groups cannot depend on conservative justices to support their challenges to state regulations. 1: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/11/scotus-chooses-california-over-pork-producers-and-issues-four-other-opinions/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/11/scotus-chooses-californ...

lisper 4y ago
There are already a lot of products that are constrained in various ways from moving across state lines. Alcohol is the poster child, but it's a long list chock full of mundane items. For example, you can't ship a shower head to California unless it has a 1.8GPM flow restrictor on it.
Kon-Peki 4y ago
LOL, Roberts takes a shot at Kavanaugh on page 26: > JUSTICE KAVANAUGH’s solo concurrence in part and dissent in part says the quiet part aloud: California’s market is so lucrative that almost any in-state measure will influence how out-of-state profit-maximizing firms choose to operate. ... But if that makes all the difference, it means voters in States with smaller markets are constitutionally entitled to greater authority to regulate in- state sales than voters in States with larger markets. So much for the Constitution’s “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the States.”
- solarmist 4y ago
  Lol, yup. Equal sovereignty does not mean equal influence.
  - ChainOfFools 4y ago
    /glances in the direction of the US Senate
    - solarmist 4y ago
      Isn’t that a direct acknowledgment that they are different?
      - ChainOfFools 4y ago
        No, unless you're reading my comment as some sort of conservative dog whistle. The US Senate structure is a direct contradiction to GP's observation, it's the case where does not is weakened to should not.
        User23 4y ago
        The Senate is working exactly as intended. Some people might disagree with that intent, but until the constitution is amended or replaced it's very much a case of "should."
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        Note that the Constitution explicitly prohibits amendments from changing the feature of the Senate in question. (Though two hacks that I am aware of have been proposed for end-running that: the first I call the “who watches the watchmen” hack – the Constitution does not explicitly protect the rules on what Amendments can do the way it protects equal representation in the Senate, so one Amendment would change the rules on Amendments to remove the prohibition against removing equal protection in the Senate, and then the second would restructure the Senate; the second I call the “ceremonial Senate” hack – the Constitution protects equal representation in the Senate from Amendment, but it doesn’t protect any of the Senate’s functions, so you can just strip all the functions of the Senate by Amendment [if you still want a functionally bicameral legislature, you can create a third house of Congress and assign whatever Senate functions you want to retain and not transfer to the House of Reps to third house].)

lisper 4y ago

There are already a lot of products that are constrained in various ways from moving across state lines. Alcohol is the poster child, but it's a long list chock full of mundane items. For example, you can't ship a shower head to California unless it has a 1.8GPM flow restrictor on it.

Kon-Peki 4y ago

LOL, Roberts takes a shot at Kavanaugh on page 26: > JUSTICE KAVANAUGH’s solo concurrence in part and dissent in part says the quiet part aloud: California’s market is so lucrative that almost any in-state measure will influence how out-of-state profit-maximizing firms choose to operate. ... But if that makes all the difference, it means voters in States with smaller markets are constitutionally entitled to greater authority to regulate in- state sales than voters in States with larger markets. So much for the Constitution’s “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty among the States.”

solarmist 4y ago
Lol, yup. Equal sovereignty does not mean equal influence.
- ChainOfFools 4y ago
  /glances in the direction of the US Senate
  - solarmist 4y ago
    Isn’t that a direct acknowledgment that they are different?
    - ChainOfFools 4y ago
      No, unless you're reading my comment as some sort of conservative dog whistle. The US Senate structure is a direct contradiction to GP's observation, it's the case where does not is weakened to should not.
      - User23 4y ago
        The Senate is working exactly as intended. Some people might disagree with that intent, but until the constitution is amended or replaced it's very much a case of "should."
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        Note that the Constitution explicitly prohibits amendments from changing the feature of the Senate in question. (Though two hacks that I am aware of have been proposed for end-running that: the first I call the “who watches the watchmen” hack – the Constitution does not explicitly protect the rules on what Amendments can do the way it protects equal representation in the Senate, so one Amendment would change the rules on Amendments to remove the prohibition against removing equal protection in the Senate, and then the second would restructure the Senate; the second I call the “ceremonial Senate” hack – the Constitution protects equal representation in the Senate from Amendment, but it doesn’t protect any of the Senate’s functions, so you can just strip all the functions of the Senate by Amendment [if you still want a functionally bicameral legislature, you can create a third house of Congress and assign whatever Senate functions you want to retain and not transfer to the House of Reps to third house].)