Love it, with one correction. You say "Meyer involved a parent prosecuted for teaching his child German". Actually, Mr. Meyer was a teacher. His case and Pierce didn't even have children or their parents as parties. Instead it was the economic actors--in Pierce, schools--making economic liberty arguments on their own behalf (arguments that won!) and parental rights arguments on behalf of the parents who contracted for the named-parties' services. This could be a way to even further distinguish the cases (if a court wanted to so argue) from the present California situation. But also, of course (and maybe this is why it doesn't come up) this would remind everyone that Pierce and Myer are also Lochner-style cases *that are still good law.*
Thank you for this correction! To avoid misleading others I have changed "his" to "a" in the post. I leave this exchange here as a record of the error and correction.
I'm not a lawyer so the nuances and intricacies of many of these cases can be hard for me to follow. I often wonder if all these judicial doctrines and canons of construction (or interpretation) aren't just dressed up ways for the Justices (on both sides of the conservative/liberal divide) to justify reaching the conclusions they want. The inconsistent application of approaches and intellectual dishonesty of the Justices would tend to support the conclusion that it's mostly outcome based reasoning. For example, almost 9 years out, was Trinity Lutheran really just about playground resurfacing?
Love it, with one correction. You say "Meyer involved a parent prosecuted for teaching his child German". Actually, Mr. Meyer was a teacher. His case and Pierce didn't even have children or their parents as parties. Instead it was the economic actors--in Pierce, schools--making economic liberty arguments on their own behalf (arguments that won!) and parental rights arguments on behalf of the parents who contracted for the named-parties' services. This could be a way to even further distinguish the cases (if a court wanted to so argue) from the present California situation. But also, of course (and maybe this is why it doesn't come up) this would remind everyone that Pierce and Myer are also Lochner-style cases *that are still good law.*
Thank you for this correction! To avoid misleading others I have changed "his" to "a" in the post. I leave this exchange here as a record of the error and correction.
I'm not a lawyer so the nuances and intricacies of many of these cases can be hard for me to follow. I often wonder if all these judicial doctrines and canons of construction (or interpretation) aren't just dressed up ways for the Justices (on both sides of the conservative/liberal divide) to justify reaching the conclusions they want. The inconsistent application of approaches and intellectual dishonesty of the Justices would tend to support the conclusion that it's mostly outcome based reasoning. For example, almost 9 years out, was Trinity Lutheran really just about playground resurfacing?