Actually, Bunting and Lochner can be distinguished because Bunting allowed workers to work more than the prescribed number of hours if they were paid overtime, while Lochner involved an absolute ban on working more than sixty hours. Thus, Lochner was a more serious infringement on liberty of
Sandy,
Can you identify a "conservative" (and politicians don't count, you can't expect intellectual consistency from them) who has argued that California deserves aid, but "victims of structural unemployment" do not?
In a message dated 10/30/2003 3:41:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL
by themsleves and everyone else to be white) on the ground that this hypothetical Argentine is a member of an ethnic/racial category called "Hispanic" strikes me as exceedingly arbitrary.
In a message dated 7/3/2003 3:51:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, David
So does this mean Marty thinks that Lochner was correctly decided?
In a message dated 6/26/2003 3:01:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I couldn't agree more. And if the Court wishes to adopt Mark's "general theory of substantive due process," you won't get any argument from
discretion in economic regulations?
In a message dated 6/26/2003 3:17:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No.
- Original Message -----
From: David Bernstein
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Bowers Overruled
So does this mean Ma
I should add that a forthcoming paper of mine, Lochner Era Revisionism, Revised: Lochner and the Origins of Fundamental Rights Constitutionalism, 82 Geo. LJ. __ (forthcoming 2003, available on SSRN) establishes, to my satisfaction at least, that Meyer and Pierce, cited favorably by Kennedy, were
This doesn't make any sense to me. What difference does it make to a recent immigrant from Columbia or Argentina who lives in New York or Miami if Mexicans 70 years ago in Texas were discriminated against?
IN any event, as a factual matter, Latinos have, as a class, been subject to pervasive
