talkpolitics | (no subject)

Judge’s Harsh Words for High Court

Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has ordered lower courts to review economic regulations with an extremely deferential “rational basis test,” which requires only that such regulations be “rationally related” to a “legitimate government interest.” In practice, this amounts to no meaningful review at all. Courts applying the rational-basis test have concluded, for example, that states may shut down unlicensed florists to protect consumers from the hypothetical dangers of stray corsage pins. Indeed, the test is so deferential that one federal court of appeals upheld a law that restricted the sale of caskets for the sole purpose of “dishing out special economic benefits” to licensed funeral directors.

I'm glad there's some judges (at least one) that are able to see the problems that they're perpetuating. Even SCOTUS decisions need to be reviewed and reconsidered at some point just to make sure that we don't get locked into something that is actually untenable over the long term. And this isn't even dealing with actual decisions but merely with the guidelines for how to come to a decision, which should be much more flexible than they apparently are. I totally agree with Judge Brown's opinion here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Her vote, she explained, was compelled by decades of bad U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Ahahahahahahaha!

The side-links on this website! Holy shit the Romney worshiping! This is a great website!

Anyway thanks for the laughs. Personally I think the Constitution is a useful, but ultimately outdated piece of paper and it needs a more modern replacement. We're the only ones left to use such an old document and it's so deliberately vague that our rule of law has basically been shaped by 'interpretations' that put the rule in law more in line with other developed countries. The SCOTUS precedents I would say have more value to this country than the Constitution itself, because they represent a more modern view of society. Of course, reasonable people can differ.

As well as the other kind.

The website's irrelevant to the article and to the judge's opinion.

Personally I think the Constitution is a useful, but ultimately outdated piece of paper and it needs a more modern replacement.

I agree, but there's a procedure for that. Just ignoring it or violating it doesn't help us.

I don't see the problem. Can't states basically do anything as it is?

No, they are limited by the Constitution as well, to a different extent.

Again this is a tough call

If we were tasked with making a new constitution I somehow doubt it would be anything less then "Give the 1% all the power, screw the little people".

It would allow the richest of our country to claim absolute power, and maybe allow them to herd a few of the un-privileged of this country into death camps, because why not they're making the rules now...

I agree. The last thing we need to do is to change the Constitution.