Today in Supreme Court History: May 4, 1942

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

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjNmUWiQ5ec

Every May 4, I think of that horrible day which made a big impression on me personally.

[Syd Henderson]

May the fourth be with you.

[Dan Schiavetta]

It still is, with me.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Kent State was really bad - as was Jackson State.

I haven't read the book,

https://wwnorton.com/books/9781324066255

but supposedly it has new information about Kent State.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I had the honor of being in Kent, Ohio during the 1977 protests and finding a book by Peter Davies about the shootings at a local bookstore.

Allison Krause (shot dead on 5/4/70), who put a flower into the gun of a National Guardsman (and he smiled!): “Flowers are better than bullets!” Not the majority viewpoint these days.

[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mistranslated at plea hearing); failure excused only on good cause and resulting in prejudice to defense on merits (superseded in 1996 by 28 U.S.C. §2254(e)(2); only excuses now are change in law or new evidence, see Shinn v. Ramirez, 2022)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

[SMP0328]

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)

There's a long list of SCOTUS decisions that have gone the other way since this unfortunate ruling. It's time for it to be overruled.

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.

What a loving wife. Loving the idea of getting away from her husband.

[Dan Schiavetta]

This reminds me, in a weird way, of the Chris Rock bit about how not to get beaten up by the police. One is "Don't drive with an angry girlfriend." When the young man gets stopped for "driving while black", she shouts out, "He's got weed!!" and they go to town on him.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Arizona v. Mauro involved someone who killed his son.

He raised an insanity case. The tape of the meeting with his wife was played to help show he was of sane mind.

I'm not sure where this "sweet talking" bit comes in. She wanted to talk with her husband. The opinion notes the police "recorded their brief conversation, in which she expressed despair about their situation." A footnote quotes the conversation.

I think that is a fair summary.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/481/520/#F1

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks. Will look at this and revise. I might have been a little tipsy when I wrote that summary.

[Xeyop]

Normal, healthy, mentally sane Americans close their eyes and into their heads pops an image of a gay man thrusting his erect love muscle in and out of another man's butthole until he has a pleasurable, shuddering orgasm resulting in the powerful ejaculation of gobs and gobs of HIV infected man cream into the other man's colon. When they open their eyes, they're sweating and gag in disgust. Liberals picture that and think "Aww shucks, what a sweet, healthy, courageous marital act between a husband and a husband!"

[Dan Schiavetta]

Another homophobic jerk. Muted.

[Speaking for normal people]

Might be but he is as right about this as any one could be.
Lust is not love and there is real perversity in the world all the worse for the hypocrisy of it. Pete Buttigieg and his sick partner have no right to subject a normal boy to life with sick bastards.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You're not a normal person. You're a sick bastard. Muted.

[David Nieporent]

Another homophobic jerk.

Don't be silly; it's the same one.

[Brett Bellmore]

I must not be a normal, healthy, mentally sane American, apparently. I don't think I've ever had that image pop into my mind.

[Dan Schiavetta]

[deleted]

[ReaderY]

By the standard the Supreme Court used in the Rotary Club case, based on a case involving the Jaycees, a private association can be required to admit women if it serves meals and its members discuss business.

Does Ogelthorpe cast any doubt on this line of cases? Every marriage involves serving meals and discussing business. Marriage easily meets the standard for when heteronormativity can be legally required.

[SMP0328]

By the standard the Supreme Court used in the Rotary Club case, based on a case involving the Jaycees, a private association can be required to admit women if it serves meals and its members discuss business.

Why should the Rotary Club and Jaycees lose their freedom of association because they discuss business at meetings? Those decisions are insults to the First Amendment, have been undermined by later precedent, and should be overruled.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Jaycees fits things into two categories.

First, the intimate associations that were protected in the right to marry cases, among others, including Obergefell v. Hodges.

Our decisions have referred to constitutionally protected "freedom of association" in two distinct senses. In one line of decisions, the Court has concluded that choices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships.

The other are expressive associations:

In another set of decisions, the Court has recognized a right to associate for the purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the First Amendment -- speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion.

The case was not held to fit into the "highly personal relationships" line of cases. Jaycees are also "large and basically unselective groups." This is not just a question of discussing business.

It is a group involved in "political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends," so the right of association is still implicated. OTOH, the right to association is held not to be absolute.

The law upheld the regulation for the protection of sexual equality in a public accommodation. Jaycees and Rotary Club also explain how the associations here are different from the organizations, including marriage, which receives more protection.

I'm unsure about this "long list" that went the other way. For instance, the Boy Scouts case is distinguishable on selectivity grounds. If it should be overruled, I'll leave open.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

An edit on the last paragraph.

Boy Scouts v. Dale turns on how the policy "significantly affect the Boy Scouts' ability to advocate public or private viewpoints." The opinion distinguishes it from Jaycees.

[Speaking for normal people]

A young boy should have a model in a decent man of morals who honors marriage and views women rightly. I don't deny the perversity of homosexual activity but I say the opposite is what the Boy Scouts is about. I want a decent normal man to be the image for my son.
I no more want a practicing gay than I want a former Nazi guard at Auschwitz. If you don't get this there is perversity in you.

[Dan Schiavetta]

My dad was a Rotarian for decades. One unspoken rule was that they never discussed business at meetings. This rule was broken by the first female they admitted.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Wickard v. Filburn first addressed another issue that concerned the lower court judge but is mostly forgotten.

The core concern today is its Commerce Clause ruling. The program addressed "extends federal regulation to production not intended in any part for commerce, but wholly for consumption on the farm."

Nonetheless, regulation includes "activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power." The Necessary and Proper Clause provides a fallback.

The regulation involved addressed needs of the national economy. His crop was partially used to raise animals for food put up for sale. The well-being of the wheat market was partially his concern. Not only were his actions partially commercial, but they were also ultimately a cog in the national economy.

Wickard blessed a broad view of federal power, which grew over time to address the needs of the modern economy. It capped off the New Deal cases but, on some level, has a more symbolic effect.

There remain many political checks as well as constitutional provisions (such as the First Amendment) that add other limitations. As the opinion states, it is generally sound constitutional policy not to have judges second guess congressional financial policy. Using artificial line drawing.

[Brett Bellmore]

But we have to return to the actual terms of the interstate commerce clause, which doesn't give Congress the power to regulate the "partially commercial" or "the national economy", but only such part of it as was commerce crossing certain boundaries.

That is to say, the actual text of the constitution drew this line, the Court was merely asked to uphold it, and declined to.

[Speaking for normal people]

It has been many years since I first came upon Wickard v Filburn and I've never seen any merit at all in the final decision. It seems rank stupid and a great abuse of words.

THINK, YOU ALWAYS LAZY LIBERTARIANS
"Farmer Filburn grew grain to feed to his own animals, and the agricultural commission said, you can't do that. We're going to fine you. Um, because no, you're not growing it to sell it. No, it doesn't cross state lines. No, it's not involved in Congress, but it affects commerce because you would otherwise have to buy your grain. Well, Thomas in Gonzalez says, here's an analogous case just like Wickard v Filburn. We've got these two invalids in California who believed themselves protected by California's medical marijuana law. So they're growing marijuana to control their own pain for their own use. And Thomas says, this is not bought or sold. It does not cross state lines. It is not only not commerce, it's not even economic activity. And if you start down this line, you're going to be regulating potluck suppers next. "

[Speaking for normal people]

This is common sense of billboard proportion

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote, referring to decisions on contraception, sodomy and same-sex marriage.

JUdge the tree by the fruit and Thomas has killed substantive due process, something only a poorly-trained lawyer could fall for

Clarence Thomas dismantles the fiction of substantive due process.
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/restoring-the-constitution-2/

"The consequences of this progressive cherry-picking include Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Roe v. Wade (1973), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which respectively invented rights to privacy (specifically encompassing marital contraception), abortion, homosexual conduct, and same-sex marriage. Even though none of these things is mentioned or remotely implied by the Constitution, the Court happily substituted its moral sense of each for the outcomes of democratic deliberation which the Constitution contemplates."

The Founders despised homosexual perversion and abortion. Just throw out the Constitution like Woodrow WIlson wanted to do. Be an honest man and admit you are just making shit up. What is true perversion anymore ?? Pete Buttigieg and that sick Chasten taking a young boy to live with two homosexuals, utter child cruelty

[SRG2]

he Founders despised homosexual perversion and abortion.

But did not see fit to prohibit either in the Constitution. And prohibitions on both fall foul of the Establishment clause.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think they saw fit to prohibit rape, murder, burglary, fraud, and so forth in the Constitution, either. Does that mean they approved of them?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Let us think of the example of obese people with unhealthy eating habits. Despite the anti-"fat shaming" movement, most people haven't yet decided that the way to love to obese is to encourage them to be unhealthy. Even if there's a strong biological urge behind gluttonous behavior, that urge should be restrained in order to bring one's eating withing proper bounds. In fact, urging healthy eating *is* the loving attitude.

On the other side, there's a good deal of fat-bashing and anti-fat hatred, which might even reach political dimensions as the unaffordability of the health-care system becomes more apparent. The focus of the bashers will probably be not to get the obese healthy, but to punish them and let them die.

The loving approach, again, is to encourage healthy eating habits and the avoidance of sinful gluttonous behavior.

This issue is of course sui generis and has no relation to any other issue. /sarc

[Dan Schiavetta]

No application to our current President, of course! The worst role model in that office in my lifetime.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

OK, though my example was meant to have application to the LGBTQetc question. "Hating" and "agreeing with" are not the only two alternatives.

As for role models and Trump, I wouldn't want anyone I liked behaving like Trump, though I wouldn't want them acting like Nixon either (and Nixon was in my lifetime). And let's not get into LBJ.