"The current, deferential regime reflects humility about the capacity of judges to evaluate the soundness of scientific and economic claims." [More]
If the big "Gotchas!" against this after all this time are rulings on bartending and hair braiding licenses, both of which are resolvable through legislation, I'm seeing Scalia's point on outweighing evils.
I'm not saying the injustices aren't a concern-- I'm saying courts not staying in their lane have inflicted untold damage to the system mandated by the Constitution.
[Via Mack H]
3 comments:
That is True.
Good concise point.
Prevents 'legislating from the bench' - wouldn't want that.
The problem is, if the courts are officially "too humble" to rule on issues involving abstruse professional knowledge, there is no check on bad laws written by legislatures who by and large lack that humility.
As a litlgant against the bump stock regulation, you in particular would be disadvantaged by precisely this position.
Good points, but I submit the 2nd Amendment is not abstruse and anyone who says it is is an idiot, a liar, or both.
Post a Comment