What Is Justice Stevens Smoking?

There are so many choice quotes from recaps of from today's hearing that it's too hard to pick just a few to comment on.

Stevens: What is your view on the effect of the state law on the interstate market? Increase prices, no effect on prices, or decrease in prices?

Barnett: Can I choose trivial reduction of price?

Stevens: If you reduce demand, then you will reduce prices? Wouldn't it increase prices?

Barnett: No, if you reduce demand, you reduce price.

Stevens: Are you sure?

Barnett: Yes.

------

Souter: Suppose that 100,000 people are in chemotherapy in California. Then couldn't there be 100,000 users of medical marijuana?

Barnett: There could be.

Souter: If there are 34 million people in California, then there could be 100,000 people in chemotherapy.

Barnett: It is important to remember that the law confines medical cannabis use to the people who are sick and have a physicians recommendation. Wickard v. Filburn's aggregation principle does not apply if the activity involved is noneconomic.

Souter: But isn't the argument that it is economic activity if it has a sizeable effect on the market?

Barnett: No. The effect on the market is only relevant if it is market activity.

Souter: But in Lopez wasn't the effect on the market much more remote than the effect involved in this case?

Barnett: The point is that economic activity and personal liberty are two different categories.

Souter: That is not a very realistic premise.

Barnett: The premise is that it is possible to differentiate economic activity from personal activity. Prostitution is economic activity, and there may be some cross substitution effects between prostitution and sex within marriage, but that does not make sex within marriage economic activity. You look at the nature of the activity to determine whether or not it is economic.

You get 'em Professor Barnett. I want to emphasize that based on Souter's viewpoint, every nook and cranny of our lives is "economic activity" and subject to federal regulation. After reading about today's events, I'm feeling bearish about the outcome.

Be sure to read the highly detailed recap by Lawrence Sollum.

(No pun intended.)

Share this

Ah, economic ignorance - so

Ah, economic ignorance - so pandemic, so frustrating, yet so hilarious... :wall: :lol:

Speaking of which (pardon the threadjack), what do you guys think about "Buy Nothing Day"? Or is that too easy a target? :dunce:

Re: "Buy Nothing Day" - The

Re: "Buy Nothing Day" - The Adam Smith Institute Blog got it about right.

"Barnett: The point is that

"Barnett: The point is that economic activity and personal liberty are two different categories."

No they aren't, but the USSC would have laughed his ass out of there had he made *that* argument.