The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
    7 posters qualify.
You have 0 points. Copying this list does not send funds. Paste it on Disperse, then connect your wallet there. |
Jim DeMint is a throwback to the Lochner-Era
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 24th, 2009 2:50 AM Author: Fighting razzmatazz party of the first part (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636491) |
 |
Date: December 24th, 2009 2:50 AM Author: 180 charcoal mad-dog skullcap stead i see what you did there (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636493) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 2:54 AM Author: Brilliant elastic band ? (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636523) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 2:55 AM Author: hairraiser frisky kitchen idea he suggested i guess only students at non-TTTs get the joke here man. (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636529) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 2:55 AM Author: Brilliant elastic band Please enlighten your TTT friend here. (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636535) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 2:57 AM Author: hairraiser frisky kitchen idea he suggested suck my dick faggot. i will never do a favor for a faggot. (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636544) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 2:58 AM Author: 180 charcoal mad-dog skullcap stead demint is a retard who doesn't know anything about law, but asserts that the healthcare bill would be unconstitutional. lochner is an early 20th century case according to which demint would (probably) be right. however, the commerce clause has since been expanded via INTERPRETATION (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636547) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:02 AM Author: Hideous curious kitty lochner wasn't a commerce clause case though, it held that congress couldn't regulate the white lung shit due to substantive due process iirc (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636559) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:03 AM Author: hairraiser frisky kitchen idea he suggested i thought it dealt with bakers and shit. (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636567) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:05 AM Author: Hideous curious kitty yeah, they got white lung from breathing in flour (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636571) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:07 AM Author: Brilliant elastic band LOL, fail. The bakers case was Baker v. Carr. (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636585) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:09 AM Author: Grizzly multi-colored house chad haha you funny
baker v. carr: political question doctrine defeated.
*bark bark kill self |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:27 AM Author: galvanic library codepig No that one was about cars. (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636673) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:08 AM Author: Fighting razzmatazz party of the first part It was a substantive due process case that, at the time, was closely linked to the idea that the federal government does not have a tremendous amount of power under the commerce clause.
My comment was directed at his conception of what is the proper -- and constitutional -- role of government. I honestly think he'd fit right in with the Lochner Court.
I also think that his idea of what is constitutional *may* have been close to correct during the Lochner era. Now, he's just woefully and embarrassingly wrong. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:10 AM Author: Hideous curious kitty I agree there is a certain nexus b/t the commerce clause and lochner, but congress can have the power to do something under the commerce clause but be forbidden from doing that particular thing because of substantive due process (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636604) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:14 AM Author: Fighting razzmatazz party of the first part True. But this depends on what the SC decides comes under the protection of substantive due process.
Personally, I think that Lochner was wrong for deeper reasons, but was only superseded with commerce clause shit because it was the easiest way to get rid of the case. |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:15 AM Author: Hideous curious kitty I'd agree, but I could see it making a comeback, many non economic substantive due process cases use a lot of similar reasoning iirc (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636620) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:16 AM Author: Fighting razzmatazz party of the first part God I hope not. (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636628) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:17 AM Author: Hideous curious kitty idk, it could be a good thing (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636631) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:08 AM Author: 180 charcoal mad-dog skullcap stead i didn't say it was a commerce clause case. they later expanded the commerce clause at the expense of economic substantive due process (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636590) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:10 AM Author: Fighting razzmatazz party of the first part correct. (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636603) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:11 AM Author: Hideous curious kitty yeah, but they may not have expanded it this far (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636605) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:14 AM Author: 180 charcoal mad-dog skullcap stead i'm just a law student but i recall that the commerce clause has been interpreted to allow for pretty much anything if you can connect it to interstate commerce. i guess the rape law didn't go through, but unlike rape, insurance has clear interstate commercial implications. (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636619) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:15 AM Author: Fighting razzmatazz party of the first part lawyers don't know this shit. (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636623) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:16 AM Author: Hideous curious kitty the question is "is not doing something commerce" scalia would almost certainly say it isn't I'd think
|
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:21 AM Author: 180 charcoal mad-dog skullcap stead he would hold that they cant regulate commerce by forcing people to pay some money?? that seems unlikely to me. (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636650) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:22 AM Author: Hideous curious kitty he would hold that failing to make a purchase isn't "commerce" which, honestly, is quite reasonable |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:22 AM Author: Fighting razzmatazz party of the first part People who wouldn't otherwise purchase insurance sill need and use healthcare. The resulting transactions certainly affect interstate commerce. (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636659) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:27 AM Author: Hideous curious kitty that's not what is being regulated though is it? (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636675) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:28 AM Author: Fighting razzmatazz party of the first part Sure it is. They are regulating health care transactions. (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636676) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:28 AM Author: Hideous curious kitty they could phrase it that way, but as I understand it the mandate applies to those who make no use whatsoever of health care (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636683) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:31 AM Author: Fighting razzmatazz party of the first part My understanding is that everybody uses health care, and that everybody is at risk of being hurt in an accident at any time. (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636692) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:32 AM Author: Hideous curious kitty at risk /= use, plenty of people could avoid making any use of the healthcare system, very few do, but many could (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636697) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:34 AM Author: Fighting razzmatazz party of the first part Eventually, everybody needs to see a doctor. (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636700) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:35 AM Author: Hideous curious kitty that doesn't mean they will, there are religous sects that refuse to hell, come to think of it those groups may well have a first amendment complaint |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:39 AM Author: Fighting razzmatazz party of the first part That would be an interesting challenge, but I think that the best outcome for the challengers would be to be excepted from the mandate. I really doubt the mandate would be declared unconstitutional on first amendment grounds. I also think that Congress can just declare the mandate to be a tax and tell everyone to STFU. (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636715) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:39 AM Author: Hideous curious kitty can you tax people for a religous practice though? (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636718) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:41 AM Author: Fighting razzmatazz party of the first part That's an interesting question. There's probably an answer somewhere. (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636723) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:42 AM Author: Hideous curious kitty I'd bet the answer is "no, you can't" but I don't have a cite
|
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:43 AM Author: Fighting razzmatazz party of the first part The answer is probably in a case that has to do with the Amish and their tax obligations. (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636730) |
|
Date: December 24th, 2009 3:44 AM Author: Hideous curious kitty very likely (https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1172937&forum_id=2#13636731) |