Today in Supreme Court History: May 4, 1942

5/4/1942: Wickard v. Filburn argued.

Comments

[Brett Bellmore]

The case that drove a stake into the heart of limited federal power.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The income tax and the Fed provided the unlimited funds that made the expansion possible.

[bernard11]

Wickard, the Fed, the income tax. You've left out (your imagined) Fourth Horseman - the 17th Amendment.

Get over it.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Good way to refute any argument -- insults.

https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/grahams-hierarchy-of-disagreement-flat.png

Resorting to insults is an admission you have no logic. Congratulations on your honesty.

[bernard11]

What logic do you have that these decisions worked out badly for the country?

Look at the comments by you and Brett here. What they amount to is,

"These were terrible things, and the country would be better off without them."

OK. That's your opinion. But don't pretend it's logic. Things would have been different. Better? Worse? Depends on POV? None of us actually knows how things would have worked out, so let's not act like we do.

For example, without an income tax would we have had the military power we have, and have had for quite some time? If not, how would the world have evolved differently?

You can claim all I have is "insults," but I didn't insult anyone. I just suggested that your claims are based on imagination and some personal preferences, not logic.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Yes, when statists "tell the truth", it's not insults.

Do you claim to be a lawyer? Do you think you could actually convince a jury your comment was not intended as an insult?

[Sarcastr0]

His point is more that your comments pure opinion with no evidence.

Note that he pretty adroitly does not say he loves him some Wickard.

I do like Wickard, I think no modern society can function without the unified programs it allows. But I have no more access to the counterfactual than you do, so I don't generally bother to just cheerlead for it whenever it comes up.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Do you claim to be a lawyer?"

I am a lawyer.

You are a disaffected, bigoted, antisocial right-wing kook whose legal reasoning would embarrass a junior high school student at a backwater religious school in Alabama or West Virginia. Better Americans will celebrate your replacement.

[Tempe Jeff]

Do you work at the SDNY office for the Federal Government?

[Noscitur a sociis]

I have Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf on ignore, but all Brett said was that Wickard ushered in an expansive reading of the commerce clause that would empower the federal government to legislate in pretty every area it wanted to. Which is both the conventional understanding, and pretty hard to argue with.

[Lee Moore]

Touching on the extent of "federal power", I was advised on the Victims of Communism thread, by a commenter called "myself", that we do not need to worry about left wing governments being "authoritarian" because that was only a "right wing" thing. Lefty governments are not authoritarian, instead committees of educated experts hand down decrees.

Imagine my delight today on coming across an example of one of these experts hard at work :

https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1786272981058220187?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1786272981058220187%7Ctwgr%5E82a98b5a91063bed3b194074b845d63e457e85b7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com%2Fdavid-strom%2F2024%2F05%2F03%2Funbelievable-n3787707

[Dan Schiavetta]

Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (decided May 4, 2009): immigrant gave employer fake green card but the number on it turned out to belong to a real person; not guilty of identity theft because statute (18 U.S.C. §1028A(a)(1)) requires theft to be “knowing”

Arthur Andersen LLC v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 (decided May 4, 2009): nonparties to arbitration can seek stay of lawsuit pending arbitration and denial of stay is immediately appealable under 9 U.S.C. §16(a)(1)(A)

Walz v. Tax Commission of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (decided May 4, 1970): property tax exemptions to religious organizations do not violate Establishment Clause (where churches run businesses, the IRS is now careful to impose an “unrelated [to church activities] business tax”)

Keeney v. Tomayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1 (decided May 4, 1992): must develop the facts in state court before running to federal court via habeas (here, attempting to void nolo contendre plea to murder because interpreter allegedly mistranslated at plea hearing); failure excused only on good cause and resulting in prejudice to defense on merits (superseded in 1996 by 28 U.S.C. §2254(e)(2); only excuses now are change in law or new evidence, see Shinn v. Ramirez, 2022)

Arizona v. Mauro, 481 U.S. 520 (decided May 4, 1987): Suspect, arrested, asserts right not to speak. Along comes his wife and sweet-talks him into conversation, taped, with police present. Statements admissible? Yes! 5 - 4 decision.

Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Reis, 451 U.S. 401 (decided May 4, 1981): 29 U.S.C. §185, which prevents employers from suing union officials who violate no-strike provision of collective bargaining agreement, also protects wildcatters (this was a truckers’ strike unauthorized by the Teamsters)

Board of Directors of Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537 (decided May 4, 1987): California statute forcing Rotary Clubs to admit women doesn’t violate Free Association (First Amendment) (sounds like a wrong decision to me)

Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496 (decided May 4, 2015): bankruptcy court order rejecting repayment plan with leave to amend didn’t dispose of “discrete dispute” under bankruptcy law and is therefore not appealable

Plumbers, Steamfitters, Refrigeration, Petroleum Fitters, and Apprentices of Local 298 v. Door County, 359 U.S. 354 (decided May 4, 1959): county is “person” under National Labor Relations Act and entitled to have NLRB determine union disputes over contracting work

Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (decided May 4, 1953): Fifteenth Amendment violated by arrangement by which all-white political club fed invariably successful candidates to Texas Democratic primaries

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Wait, a guy claims he pled no contest because his interpreter mistranslated what was happening? And he got convicted of murder? And they’re debating whether his claim should get a hearing?

Also, the religious property-tax exemption applies (notoriously in California and I believe in the other states too) to sects which are not traditionally theistic. Yes, the famous secular humanists. Or Unitarian Universalists. Or Ethical Culture Societies.

[Syd Henderson]

I'm relieved to see Flores-Figueroa v. United States was unanimous. There were a couple of concurrences. Was he removed as an illegal alien?

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don't know, but in New York at least, if he got injured on the job, due to his deception as to status his lost income claim would be restricted to what he would have made in his home country (converted to U.S. dollars), whereas if his employer hired him without asking his legal status, he would be entitled to what he would have made in the U.S. Balbuena v. IDR Realty, 6 N.Y.3d 338 (2005).