Courts & Law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

A century ago this country permitted child labor and sweatshop labor, and did not regulate the hours and conditions of employment because of U.S. Supreme Court decisions like Kidd v. Pearson (1888) (intra-state commerce), Locher v. New York (1905) (economic liberty and private contract rights), Adair v. U.S. (1908) (labor unions), and Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918) (child labor). The Reel Foto: Lewis Hine: The Littlest Laborers (h/t photo).

"Tentherism" is a dormant and long-discredited legal theory today, but tenthers dominated the
Supreme Court from the late 1800s until 1937, when a majority of the
Court finally recognized that national leaders must be empowered to
solve a national economic crisis like the Great Depression.

Now our "Tenther" Tea-Publican Senators want to repeal the advances of the 20th Century. Think Progress reports, 36 Senators Introduce Bill Prohibiting Virtually Any New Law Helping Workers:

More than three-quarters of the Senate Republican caucus signed onto
legislation introduced Wednesday by Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Rand
Paul (R-KY) that could render it virtually impossible for Congress to enact any legislation intended to improve working conditions
or otherwise regulate the workplace. Had their bill been in effect
during the Twentieth Century, for example, there would likely be no
nationwide minimum wage, no national ban on workplace discrimination, no
national labor law and no overtime in most industries.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Closing arguments were today in the Voter ID trial in Pennsylvania. the AP reports, Lawyers sum up their cases in Pa. voter ID trial:

The
12-day trial over Pennsylvania's tough voter-identification law ended
Thursday with the state contending that officials have provided
safeguards to ensure any registered voter can easily get the mandatory
photo ID and plaintiffs urging the judge to overturn the law because it
violates voters' constitutional rights.

"It is time to put an end to this and enjoin the law," Jennifer Clarke,
director of Philadelphia's Public Interest Law Center and a member of
the plaintiffs' legal team, told Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard
McGinley.

Philadelphia lawyer Alicia Hickok, arguing for the state, said the
plaintiffs failed to show that the law is unconstitutional.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Term of the U.S. Supreme Court begins, by statute, on the first Monday in October. The 2013 Term begins October 7, 2013.

The very next day, Tuesday, October 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in what portends to be the most momentous decision of the 2013 Term. Mark your calendars. It is the case of McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (12-536), the "Son of Citizens United" monster that may unravel federal campaign contribution limits. The issues presented are:

(1) Whether the biennial limit on contributions to non-candidate
committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), is unconstitutional for lacking a
constitutionally cognizable interest as applied to contributions to
national party committees; and (2) Whether the biennial limits on
contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), are
unconstitutional facially for lacking a constitutionally cognizable
interest; and (3) Whether the biennial limits on contributions to
non-candidate committees are unconstitutionally too low, as applied and
facially; and (4) Whether the biennial limit on contributions to
candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(A), is unconstitutional for
lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest.

h/t Scotusblog.com