Comments on: What’s the most destructive Supreme Court case that’s still good law? http://uncommon-priors.com/?p=65 In Soviet Russia, blog hits you. Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:59:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Jason Wojciechowski http://uncommon-priors.com/?p=65&cpage=1#comment-19 Jason Wojciechowski Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:14:27 +0000 http://uncommon-priors.com/?p=65#comment-19 If <i>Raich</i> actually resulted in California weed shops being shut down by the feds, then it'd get a vote, but that appears not to have happened. What about <i>The Civil Rights Cases</i>? Or <i>The Slaughterhouse Cases</i>? Or, ooh, how about <i>Hans v. Louisiana</i>. Boy do I dislike that one. The actual social effects of these are harder to judge than in cases like <i>Buckley</i>, though, so it's difficult to make comparisons. If Raich actually resulted in California weed shops being shut down by the feds, then it’d get a vote, but that appears not to have happened.

What about The Civil Rights Cases? Or The Slaughterhouse Cases? Or, ooh, how about Hans v. Louisiana. Boy do I dislike that one.

The actual social effects of these are harder to judge than in cases like Buckley, though, so it’s difficult to make comparisons.

]]> By: Kaimi http://uncommon-priors.com/?p=65&cpage=1#comment-15 Kaimi Sun, 20 Jul 2008 03:35:24 +0000 http://uncommon-priors.com/?p=65#comment-15 Hi Paul, Well, technically, Korematsu is still good law. But you're right that as a practical matter, it's dead. I posted some of my own thoughts on this question, over at http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/07/whats_the_worst.html Hi Paul,

Well, technically, Korematsu is still good law. But you’re right that as a practical matter, it’s dead.

I posted some of my own thoughts on this question, over at http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/07/whats_the_worst.html

]]> By: KipEsquire http://uncommon-priors.com/?p=65&cpage=1#comment-14 KipEsquire Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:25:22 +0000 http://uncommon-priors.com/?p=65#comment-14 <i>Wickard v. Filburn</i>. All federal economic interventionism (not to mention quite a bit of federal criminal interventionism, including <i>Raich</i>) derives directly from it. And its reasoning is unquestionably the just-plain-dumbest consequentialist rationalizing in the history of Supreme Court jurisprudence. <a href="http://www.kipesquire.net/2006/01/the-ten-worst-supreme-court-cases/" rel="nofollow"><i>The Ten Worst Supreme Court Cases</i></a> Wickard v. Filburn. All federal economic interventionism (not to mention quite a bit of federal criminal interventionism, including Raich) derives directly from it. And its reasoning is unquestionably the just-plain-dumbest consequentialist rationalizing in the history of Supreme Court jurisprudence.

The Ten Worst Supreme Court Cases

]]>