PDA

View Full Version : Federal Court: Government Doesn't Need a Reason to Ban Competition




Suzanimal
07-27-2015, 11:07 AM
Could the government prohibit LeBron James from playing professional basketball simply to put more money in the pockets of less talented athletes?

Absolutely, said the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in a surprising — and appalling — decision last week, upholding a nakedly anticompetitive restriction on non-dentist teeth-whiteners in Connecticut. The decision deepens a split between the federal circuits concerning the constitutionality of economic protectionism — a split that cries out for resolution by the Supreme Court.

The Background

In 2011, the Connecticut Dental Commission issued a ruling that only licensed dentists were permitted to provide certain teeth-whitening procedures. Non-dentist teeth-whiteners were threatened with up to $25,000 in fines and five years in jail per customer.

Tasos Kariofyllis and Steve Barraco, co-owners of Sensational Smiles LLC, brought suit, arguing that this prohibition (like similar prohibitions in other states) does nothing to promote the state’s legitimate interests in public health and safety; instead, the prohibition is plainly designed to protect dentists from having to compete with cheaper, more convenient non-dentist teeth-whiteners.

The parties agreed that only one rule applied to Sensational Smiles — a rule stating that only licensed dentists can shine an LED lamp at the mouth of a customer during a teeth-whitening procedure. These lights are no more powerful than a household flashlight and it is perfectly legal to make these lights available for customers to position in front of their own mouths.

The Ruling

Writing for himself and another judge on the Second Circuit panel, Senior Judge Guido Calabresi conceded that the would-be teeth-whiteners “forcefully argue[d] that the true purpose of the Commission’s LED restriction is to protect the monopoly on dental services enjoyed by licensed dentists.”

However, he concluded that a “simple preference for dentists over teeth-whiteners” on the government’s part would be a “rational” justification, even if the challenged rule was neither meant to nor actually did anything to protect public health. “Even if the only conceivable reason for the LED restriction was to shield licensed dentists from competition,” explained Calabresi, the rule would stand.

...

http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/detail/federal-court-rules-naked-government-favoritism-is-constitutional

Ronin Truth
07-27-2015, 12:24 PM
Did we just receive a(nother) reason to ban Federal Court? :mad:

tod evans
07-27-2015, 01:31 PM
Did we just receive a(nother) reason to ban burn Federal Court? :mad:


FIFY ;)

Christopher A. Brown
07-27-2015, 03:56 PM
Did we just receive a(nother) reason to ban Federal Court? :mad:

Yes, but you are too helpless to take part because you cannot agree with simple natural law woven into our framing documents that can create the unity needed to do what you suggest. You are against a "we" forming. "We" implies unity and you cannot recognize that which nearly all sincere Americans can.

Really want to ban the federal courts, try again?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Ronin Truth
07-27-2015, 05:40 PM
Yes, but you are too helpless to take part because you cannot agree with simple natural law woven into our framing documents that can create the unity needed to do what you suggest. You are against a "we" forming. "We" implies unity and you cannot recognize that which nearly all sincere Americans can.

Really want to ban the federal courts, try again?

YES!

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

NO!

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

NO!

I take my natural law straight.

Screw the bogus BS lame statist document weaving and distortion watering down crapola. :p :rolleyes:

Ronin Truth
07-27-2015, 05:44 PM
FIFY ;)

IF it ain't broke, PULEEEZE don't fix it.

Thanks! :)

kpitcher
07-27-2015, 05:51 PM
I assume licensed dentists have to pay a yearly tax to be licensed, whereas this alternative does not.

tod evans
07-27-2015, 05:54 PM
IF it ain't broke, PULEEEZE don't fix it.

Thanks! :)

But it were broke.....:o

Thou shant ban that which bans........

Ronin Truth
07-27-2015, 06:02 PM
But it were broke.....:o

Thou shant ban that which bans........

I still maintain that some folks really do need 'FIFY', I just believe that I'm NOT one of them. :p

(FWIW, my muse agrees.)