Tag: New Deal

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Autumn Colors: The Color of Law, an in-depth review

 

When people are free to associate as they please, we can’t be surprised if they sometimes self-segregate. People self-sort along many affinities, including ethnic affinities. This is what lawyers call de facto segregation, and it’s none of the law’s business. De jure segregation — segregation imposed by law, including segregation promoted by public policy — is, on the other hand, very much the law’s business.

In 1866, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act (the 1866 CRA) asserting the equal rights of blacks before the law, including property rights, and real-estate rights in particular. The 1866 CRA warned

Richard Epstein reacts to the recent Supreme Court decision in Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis, defending the right of employers to use arbitration and avoid class action lawsuits.

Richard Epstein looks at Janus v. AFSCME, a Supreme Court case out of Illinois with the potential to dramatically reduce the power of public sector unions.

Member Post

 

I seem to recall that there are some Ricochetti who are knowledgeable about Japan and its history, but I don’t remember who they are. I hope they find this note. We’ve been cleaning house and our daughter, who graduated about 20 years ago, said we could get rid of those college textbooks she left here. […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. The Supreme Court’s Incomplete Raisin Decision

 

shutterstock_155693495Many opponents of the government’s persistent meddling in agricultural markets hailed the recent Supreme Court decision in Horne v. Department of Agriculture — which found that a government scheme in which raisins are confiscated from growers in order to prop up crop prices constituted a taking that required just compensation — as a victory for limited government. As I note in my new column for Defining Ideas, however, the Court’s approach to this topic was woefully incomplete:

The most amazing part of this saga is not that the Hornes won, but that no one involved in the litigation used the word “cartel.” The Hornes had to avoid the term, which would undermine their claim. A cartel arrangement is not just a naked taking. Its offset turns out to be the higher prices that the Hornes and other cartel members can fetch for their remaining stock of raisins in the open market, which should count as a form of in-kind compensation under the Takings Clause. Under traditional antitrust lingo, they are cheaters who work under the cartel umbrella. All power to them!