To Much Regulation

For John, BLUF:  The question is, the Supreme Court having spoken, can it then unspeak in other areas?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Crazy Right-Wing Supreme Court Rejects Government Regulations

Today, from The National Review, by Mr David French.

On page 27 of one of today’s Supreme Court opinions is this ringing rejection of regulatory regimes. The majority opinion addressed the argument that new regulations would prevent misconduct:

But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. The regulatory state should tremble in fear.  There is now “no reason to believe” that additional regulations would affect wrongdoers.  That means that regulations may not even be able to escape the lowest level of judicial scrutiny — rational-basis review.

Then the article goes the other way, noting that Abortion is a special thing.

Never mind.  The regulatory state is safe.  Everyone knows that the Supreme Court privileges the killing of children above all else.  After all, as Justice Ginsburg has said, Roe v. Wade was motivated by “concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”  The undesired have to die — the reasoning matters not.

Surely Justice Ginsburg is not trying to channel Margaret Sanger.  This item, from 2012, say that Justice Ginsburg didn't mean what she blurted out.  Which is good, since it was favoring eugenics.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff