Not to quibble. (Well yes maybe to quibble a little.) The question, as I
understood it, was never whether caselaw exists which overulled Lochner. Clearly there
is. Nor was the question whether there were cases containing language which stood for
the overruling of Lochner.(However, if the
Thanks to Mark Graber for the reminder of what Taft said in Adkins. But
what Robin Charlow says below somehow put me in mind of the astonishing
treatment of stare decisis in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling, in
which what was wrong with Lochner was said to be not that it got anything
wrong
This is an interesting question. As Howard notes, one can overrule the
holding in Lochner without rejecting the premise that courts should serve
as active monitors of what is increasingly becoming an interest-group
polity characterized by attempting to capture the machinery of government
in order
Dear Robin,
This seems
to me almost exactly right.
Best,
Louise
At 11:24 AM 10/30/03, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/30/03
11:58AM
The more general question is whether (and why) Lochner was
not
formally overruled.
If memory serves (I don't have the decisions in front of me), isn't
it
so that
