upvote

points

by swiftcoder1 days ago |
comments
upvoteby gbacon1 days ago|
next
[-]
You have identified a root perversion. Roscoe Filburn’s wheat did not leave Ohio or even his farm. He didn’t offer it for sale; the wheat was for his own use. It was deemed to “affect interstate commerce” and thus within the scope of the interstate commerce clause. With that, a provision intended to remove power of states to tax each other’s goods and services and promote a free trade zone instead became a mechanism to nitpick and micromanage every last little detail, ossify existing practice, protect large players, give loopholes to the politically connected, and enable mass regulatory capture. It cannot be overturned quickly enough.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/

reply
upvoteby laughing_man1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
I don't see SCOTUS ever overturning Wickard, sadly. Too many federal programs and regulations would lose their legal basis if that happened.
reply
upvoteby gbacon1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
You’re almost certainly correct. Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson would argue this consequentualist line. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch could be persuaded by textualist or originalist arguments and are the most likely overturn votes. Kavanaugh was a key man on standing up and defending the so-called PATRIOT Act during the George W. Bush administration, so no way he knocks out this pillar.

ACB talked a strong originalist game during her confirmation but since shown it’s not her core philosophy. Although Roberts appears inclined to rein in the administrative state, he’s aligned chaotic neutral and thinks himself too clever.

Already down 4-3 and having to persuade both Barrett and Roberts to join a ruling overturning parts of Wickard, another Dobbs seems wildly unlikely even though both precedents were poorly reasoned. At best, they agree to some marginal or technical reduction in scope. It seems equally likely that she sides with the four, in which case, what does Roberts do? He may need to make it 6-3 to control who writes the opinion. Such strong numbers would be unfavorable enough on the surface that he might persuade her back to an even more tepid limitation. The concurring opinions that it would induce from Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would be entertaining reading, at least.

reply
upvoteby hellojesus21 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
There's no way Roberts would vote to overturn this given his history of pretending a penalty directly remitted to the IRS for not carrying health insurance was not a tax for the whole ACA fiasco.

But Filburn must needs be overturned. The sovereignty of states depends on it.

reply
upvoteby PaulDavisThe1st1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Please suggest one, but ideally three, things that you think that overturning Wickard would lead to that would cause K, S & J to vote against doing so?
reply
upvoteby giantg222 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The federal civil rights act of 1964 is probably a good one. The clean air act is another. Probably others like consumer protection laws, healthcare regulations, safety laws (OSHA), etc. These are all based on the expanded powers from wickard v fillburn. If portions of these were challenged and overturned, I believe those justices would not view that as a good thing.
reply
upvoteby hellojesus21 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Isn't OSHA already unconstitutional under current implementation due to competing intelligible principles?

I agree they won't do it, but they absolutely should.

reply
upvoteby wahern1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
In Gonzales, O'Connor dissented and Scalia, who was too afraid of pulling the rug out from under the administrative state, issued a concurrence. So, surprises do happen.
reply
upvoteby laughing_man1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Drugs were always a weird exception to what was otherwise pretty consistent jurisprudence on Scalia's part.
reply
upvoteby wahern1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
I was prepared to excuse his vote as an exceptional situation until Sebelius, when rather than revisit and fix his mistake in Gonzales he chose to embrace the affirmative mandate vs passive prohibition distinction nonsense, a deux ex machina fit for one purpose and one purpose only. Fool me once....

There's a good argument to be made that it was just good luck for Scalia's intellectual legacy that he died before the conservative supermajority on the court got rolling, because he was already well on his way to replacing principles with expediency: https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/justice-scalias-uncertain... Like the old saying goes, it's easy to criticize, much more difficult to offer constructive, durable solutions.

reply
upvoteby PaulDavisThe1st1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I call BS. Wickard is about, effectively, "police power" based on a broad interpretation of the scope of federal/interstate commerce.

As noted by other commenters, the concept of federal control of interstate commerce was intended to prevent states from interfering with trade between themselves and other states, and to create some "higher" authority for aspects of commerce that truly transcended state borders and control.

Most of what has happened in terms of programs and regulations fits very comfortably into that understanding. What doesn't, which I don't think is a lot, should probably go away anyway.

reply
upvoteby laughing_man1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
If you can use the commerce clause to prevent a guy growing wheat on his own property and feeding that crop in its entirety to his animals, there literally isn't an activity the federal government can't regulate.
reply
upvoteby socalgal21 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Correct. I'm suprised sexual orientation hasn't been regulated by the same stupid logic. Clearly if you're not making babies you're effecting all kinds of interstate commerce.
reply
upvoteby mothballed1 days ago|
prev|
[-]
That would also invalidate the civil rights act, as the (similar) 19th century CRA was already struck down because the 14th amendment binds against discrimination by public not private actors. The reason why the modern CRAs weren't also struck is because they rested on the laurels of Wickard v Filburn declaring the CRA (this time) is about regulating "interstate" commerce.
reply
upvoteby bombcar1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
fixing the interstate commerce clause is one of those things that needs to be done eventually, but will likely never be done - even if just to "fix" it so everything remains the same but is based on simpler allocation of powers than through a "loophole".
reply
upvoteby gbacon1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
John Roberts will find a way to screw it up.
reply
upvoteby drak0n1c1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
That would be an improvement in the same spirit, as the modern CRAs are also unconstitutionally limiting over what one chooses to do with their own property. The scope should be limited to government-involved services and facilities, as those must serve all possible taxpayers. We live in a more connected, option-saturated information age where even bigots more often than not understand the utility of at least doing business politely and making nuanced exceptions. Egregious offenses are corrected by social pressure and business competition. The current regime of ambulance-chasing liabilities inserted into every organizational, contracting, and hiring process harms far more people of every race and sex than it helps.
reply
upvoteby BobaFloutist1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
>Egregious offenses are corrected by social pressure and business competition.

This doesn't work when bigots are willing to pay a premium for discriminatory services.

Also, do you feel the same way about the FHA and Title VII? Those also involve regulating what you can choose to do with your private property, but I don't want to assume that you don't consider housing and employment to be distinct from, say, hotels and grocery stores.

reply
upvoteby hellojesus21 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think it should be repealed. It's legally baseless. How hard would it possibly be to get anti discriminatory Ammendments into the constitution? Surely at least 2/3 of reps are not that unfit.
reply