Holmes Dissent: accuses majority of imbuing the ideas of liberty/freedom of K w/ their own views of reg (Social Darwinism d/n fit in w/ Const. interpretation of equality). If allow majority opinion to prevail, would delegitimate reg of ed, taxation, antitrust law, etc. Ct is foisting its own views upon the court. (Lochnerizing). These changes should be left to democratic political process.
Coppage v. Kansas. P. 501: struck down law req that employees agree as a condition of employment not to join or become a member of any labor org
Nebbia v. NY: p. 503 ct questions Lochner b/c of its treatment of state purpose. No prob w/ state Milk Control Bd fixing minimum and max retail prices to be charged by stores to consumers for consumption off the premises where sold. Applies rational basis rev.
West Coast Hotel Co v. Parrish p. 505: upheld state min wage law for women and overrules Adkins.
U.S. v. Carolene Products, 1938: p.507 overrules Lochner, allows legislature to do what it wants in eco domain. Receding from judicial activism in eco domain, but moves toward aggressiveness in race cases. When political process is unrepresentative or poses harm to discrete and insular minorities, ct should intervene. Shift in what legitimizes jud review beyond speech and religion.
Williamson v. Lee Optical, 1955: upholds state req of opthamologist prescriptions for eyewear purchases. Using rational basis analysis, finds a legit state purpose. As long as there is some basis, it is const. There’s no suspect class, no equality issue, no fund rt here, purely eco reg. No state record, so ct made up reason of medical conditions—total deference. But law is overinclusive and underinclusive. Would have to get eyes checked again if already had exam.
The Right of Personal Autonomy: Of Contraception, Abortion, Consensual Adult Sexuality, Death, Drugs, and Beyond (pp. 516-615)
Background Theory:
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
