The Conservative Four
rkessler at sulross.edu
rkessler at sulross.edu
Wed Mar 24 06:56:56 PDT 2010
Back to the Lochner era? Get real! The very remote possibility of a
conservative Court striking down the new health care bill is turning a lot
of people into chicken littles. I don't have time to even start
distinguishing the two cases and eras.
Prof. of Criminal Justice
Sul Ross State University
> As I understand the so-called Revolution of 1937, the Court, with
> Justice Roberts's famous "Switch In Time That Saved Nine," was finally
> able to come around and state its new, or New Deal, position: No longer
> would it interfere with social reform legislation enacted by
> legislatures, state and federal, the exceptions being those instances
> encompassed by Footnote 4, Carolene, mainly on civil rights for the
> disfavored and powerless. Perhaps this latter should include sick
> people too poor to afford insurance. But here the legislation seeks to
> protect these weak and powerless. The conservative opposition would
> have the effect of unprotecting them.
> The world has changed since the New Deal and now we have a new, powerful
> group of four conservatives, who could give the Old Court a run for its
> money, comprising a powerful wing of the Court. Judicial activism for
> conservatives is alive and well, viz. Bush v. Gore (2000).
> Incidentally, I don't recall seeing rioting in the streets behind this
> latter day Dred Scott opinion, amounting to a coup d'etat, in comparison
> with which Health Care, like Social Security, is peanuts.
> What strikes me about Conlaw is that as law, it is finite; as doctrine,
> it is infinite. Meaning that whenever new law is required to reach a
> result, the Court can always dip into the ocean of alleged moral/legal
> values to find one capable of being designed by the tailor to suit the
> patron. After all, questions of moral/legal value have been written
> about since at least the Old Testament, thus there is plenty of fodder
> out of which to create new doctrine, which, with the addition of the
> vote of Justice Kennedy, becomes new Conlaw. The only remaining
> question will be whether you like it. And then we go 'round and 'round
> again until pop goes the weasel. I'm betting that Kennedy upholds the
> new law. He seems to want to see the country survive as a decent place
> to raise your grandkids.
> In sum, it wouldn't surprise me to see at least one wing of the Court
> seize on some little-used but convenient doctrine (as the Delegated
> Powers doctrine was used back in the day) pulled out of the Conlaw Hat
> to try to strike down the new PPHA (Patient Protection and Healthcare
> Act). If I'm wrong about Kennedy, why then, as has been pointed out,
> we'd be back in the Lochner Era all over again, working towards the next
> What do you think it would take for the Conservative Four to uphold PPHA?
> Perhaps if we thought of the new law as a civil rights measure instead
> of as an exercise of the commerce power, the picture might clarify.
> Didn't Pres. Obama claim as much in extolling the passage on Sunday?
> Yet the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was upheld as a commerce power measure
> in Ollie's BBQ and Heart of Atlanta Motel, wasn't it. Sometimes you
> have to take what you can get. Conlaw isn't any prettier than sausage
> making and sometimes far less.
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
More information about the Conlawprof