Today in Supreme Court History: April 9, 1923

4/9/1923: Adkins v. Children's Hospital decided.

Comments

[apedad]

On this day in history.

Robert E. Lee surrenders his 28,000 rebel troops.

Fucking traitor.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

He was a slave owner and betrayed his oath to the federal army.

But secession was a right. We certainly treat secession as a right when it pleases us -- Kosovo, for instance; the breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia; various African ex-colonies trying to straighten out their arbitrary and capricious colonial borders. There is no language in the US Constitution forbidding secession, yet that was somehow illegal; while the Articles of Confederation, having language to the contrary, was dumped in favor of the Constitution which was created at an illegal convention with an intentionally false premise.

[apedad]

Do you mean The Declaration of Independence?

[Cal Cetín]

Each secession in my view ought to be judged on its own merits, with a presumption against revolution and war.

Secession for a bad cause (like slavery) is of course wrong out of the gate, without even having to consider proportionality, chance of success, and other just-war factors.

Secession for a good cause could be a good thing if other just-war factors are met, or if it can be pulled off without war.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It would have taken 3 seconds for Josh to add that Adkins was later overruled, even as to actions of States, and is no longer good law.

[Cal Cetín]

"The question presented for determination by these appeals is the constitutionality of the Act of September 19, 1918, providing for the fixing of minimum wages for women and children in the District of Columbia....

"...the ancient inequality of the sexes, otherwise than physical, as suggested in the Muller Case...has continued 'with diminishing intensity.' In view of the great—not to say revolutionary—changes which have taken place since that utterance, in the contractual, political, and civil status of women, culminating in the Nineteenth Amendment, it is not unreasonable to say that these differences have now come almost, if not quite, to the vanishing point. In this aspect of the matter, while the physical differences must be recognized in appropriate cases, and legislation fixing hours or conditions of work may properly take them into account, we cannot accept the doctrine that women of mature age, sui juris, require or may be subjected to restrictions upon their liberty of contract which could not lawfully be imposed in the case of men under similar circumstances. To do so would be to ignore all the implications to be drawn from the present day trend of legislation, as well as that of common thought and usage, by which woman is accorded emancipation from the old doctrine that she must be given special protection or be subjected to special restraint in her contractual and civil relationships...."

To this feminist passage from the majority, Justice Holmes' sexist dissenting opinion replied:

"It will need more than the Nineteenth Amendment to convince me that there are no differences between men and women, or that legislation cannot take those differences into account."

I bet Holmes was anti-trans, too.

[Cal Cetín]

Of course, Holmes thought the legislature could regulate men as well as women. But this particular law was for women and children only, sufficient basis for Holmes to uphold it.

[Bubba Jones]

How do we reconcile the conflict between dumb enough to choose to be a cop and too dumb to be a cop?