Difference between revisions of "MAR 23"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==17. MAR 23==
+
==17: MAR 23: Unit Three: Roe, Dobbs, and the Search for Basic Liberties==
  
===Assigned Work (Heavy Reading Day)===
+
===Assigned===
  
:*Gopnik, Adam, "Who Made the Restaurant?" from The Table Comes First, 2012, (pp. 13-57). (44)
+
:*Kahn Academy, "The Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re2d80cqhYw]
:*Ogle, Maureen, ''In Meat We Trust,'' C2, "We Are Here To Make Money" (26-44) (18)
+
:*Scotus Brief, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization  [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQllmb-0Lnk]
 +
:*Alfino, "Interpretation, Political Orientation, and Basic Liberties in the Dobbs Decision" (1-13)
 +
:*Supreme Court of the US, "Excerpts from the Dobbs Decision," (1-13)
  
===In-class===
+
===Kahn Academy, "The 14th Amendment and equal protection"===
  
:*Re-imagining the restaurant
+
:*Section 1: "'''All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws'''."
  
===Gopnik, Adam, "Who Made the Restaurant?" (13-57)===
+
:*prohibitions by Federal gov't to potential state actions.  Restates 5th ammentdment as applying to states, not just feds.
 +
:*"equal protection clause"  
  
:*from ''The Table Comes First''
+
:*Historical context
 +
::*1868 - after civil war, 13th abolished slavery, 14th responding to "black codes" - statutes that repressed rights of recently emancipated African Americans. 
 +
::*Supreme Court opinion in Plessy v Ferguson: 1896 - separate train car travel.  equal but separate is OK! doesn't violate the 14th amendment. (The textbook example of how ''stare decisis'' can't be absolute.  Widely viewed as a shameful decision.)  Reversed by Brown v Board of Education.  Separate is not equal.  1954.  Took decades to make progress enacting this decision.
 +
::*14th Amendment key to civil rights arguments. Sexual equality in the workplace.  Also pro-life arguments (liberty of the unborn). Quotas in higher education (recent cases pending Summer '23). 
  
:*opening description - follow -- illusion of dining room, relation to romance, difference from previous types: table d'hote, traiteur, caterer.
+
===SCOTUS Brief, Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization===
::*Traits of modern restaurant: waiters, menus, tables, mirrors, closed kitchen, seduction, silences..(privacy in public)
 
  
:*personal experiences -- HoJo to Paris - Grand Vefour -- restaurants and writers' scenes(search "Howard Johnson's Simple Simon and the Pie Man—1950's images" to see the original HoJo restaurant sign.)Interesting how many of the characteristics are in common between the two restaurants.
+
:*June 2022. Mississippi Gestational Age Act15 week abortion limit. Conflict with Roe and Casey.   
  
:*19: account of origin of restaurant starts here:  
+
:*Majority decision:
 +
::*5 of the 6 (not Roberts) voted to overturn Roe and Casey.  Roberts wanted a more moderate approach - allow 15 week bans.
 +
::*Stare Decisis - 5 reasons for overruling.  Revisits Roe - invoked complicated argument from several amendments. Casey affirms Roe, but focuses only on 14th am. '''Abortion rights not found in text or tradition (originalism).''' 
 +
::*Claims not to impact anything but abortion, which involves potential life.  Left standing other decisions that seem to depend on Roe.  Contraception, same sex relationships.  Thomas went further, court should reconsider "due process" cases. Rec alternative approach.
 +
::*Roberts concurrence: Urged more restraint. Throw out the "viability standard" (digression) Accept the Mississippi limit
  
:*old story - post french revolution, displaced help from nobles. But restaurant starts 20 years earlier.  Restaurant not like home service.
+
:*Minority decision:
 +
::*Major claims
 +
:::*1. Majority decision takes rights away from women if they are pregnant.
 +
:::*2. Roe and Casey support a long line of settled cases on privacy, private choices about family matters, sexuality, and procreation. (In a way, Thomas might agree, but want to reconsider those.) 50 years of reliance.
  
:*three factors: intellectual causes (health and simplicity), commercial causes (new site for restaurants in/around Palais Royal), moral/social cause (breakdown of caste/class leading up to Rev)
+
===Supreme Court, Excerpts from Dobbs (1-13)===
  
:*Mathrurin Roze de Chantoiseau -- first restauranteurnote root meanings of "restaurant" - associated with bullion and restorativesEarly restaurant served healthy foods that you couldn't source (22), not esoteric or exoticChantoiseau introduced more of a pleasure motive to the restaurant.   
+
:*Majority Decision
 +
::*Background and context of Roe as departure from history of country.  Liberalization was occurring but Roe cut it off.  Presents Casey as disputed opinion, not really an endorsement of Roe. Casey was a partial overruling of Roe.   
 +
::*p. 5: Major statement of ruling.  ....not in history or tradition... (new, originalist, standard for "unenumerated" rights)
 +
::*Long evidentiary argument to support the major premise about history and traditionDraws conclusion p. 7/25.   
 +
::*Discusses Plessy as example of overturning stare decisis.   
 +
::*Robert's concurrence: p. 11/7: Throw out the viability standard
  
:*Gender dimension to the new restaurant: Women could go together in public (!). Also, the restaurant can make you feel rich. Fancier than your stuff. Another early restauranteur, Vacossion, focused on simple foods that individuals could not source themselves. "nouvelle cuisine"
+
===Alfino, "Interpretation..." main points (1-13)===
  
:*French Revolution actually problematic for the early restaurant -- communalism of the table d'hote more suited to egalitarianism.   
+
:*Basic Intuitions about liberty and abortion:
 +
::*Not unreasonable to say life begins with conception
 +
::*Also, unreasonable to deny that liberty and autonomy are constrained without a right elective of abortion.
 +
::*Abortion rights is a problem of understanding what basic liberties areStart there.
  
:*Commercial scene of the Palais Royal -- first mall.  27: 1780-1830 -- period of growth of restaurants  - reflected some international ethnic cusine, but points out that the southern provinces of France would seem as exotic to Parisians and North African cuisine might seem to us.  "Provencal"
+
:*The Dobbs decision:
  
:*The modern restaurant also developes alongside gastronomyAmong the first, Brillat-Savarin, ''The Physiology of Taste''.  
+
::*The majority determined indirectly that elective abortion isn't a constitutional right by applying an originalist approach to determining unenumerated rightsThat approach is in contrast to the "living document" approach of the minority (and the jurisprudence of privacy of the past 4-6 decades.  They left open the possibility that the right could be legislated as a statutory right or prohibited.
  
:*Adopted “'''Russian service'''” (sequence of courses, dishes chosen by each diner) rather than '''French banquet service''' (piles of dishes on a sideboard from which waiters serve) (consider the individualism in this) -- note how this changes the motivations of restauranteurs to be entrepreneurial.  (Wealth of Nations, 1776)
+
:*'''Originalism''' - Unenumerated rights must be part of the history and tradition of the country.  Without this constraint judicial opinions are too subjective.  Interpreting a contract requires finding language in the contract that speaks to the immediate issue.
 +
:*'''Living document''' - The meanings of words like "liberty" and "autonomy" change over time. The Framers and Ratifiers ''intended'' us to update the meanings of basic terms in light of experience.  (Justice Kagan: "We're all originalists." see p. 9 Alfino). Many of our decisions do require applying new meanings or cases not envisioned by the Framers. 
  
:*'''Part two of the chapter: The French Cafe''':  compares the emergence of the restaurant to the newer cafe, which did come into being by post-revolution licensing law changes allowing coffee/alcohol in same placealcohol a myopic drug / caffeine a far sighted drug.  33-37, importance of.  (Digress to consider how we handle this now and in different places.)  note Paris / London comparisons p. 33.  The cafe is a hangout, unlike the more formal restaurant. 
+
:*Political Orientation Issue -- In light of our study of the nature of morality, we can't miss the fact that these different approaches to interpretation reflect fundamentally conservative and liberal political orientationsHow should we take that into account if finding a solution to conflicts over basic liberties?
  
:*Brings in Pierre Bourdieu and Priscilla Park Ferguson -- "social field" , like a "scene"  (examples of "gastronomic scenes" -- craft beer, local roasted coffee....)  features of a food scene:  writing, end of famine, enjoyment of food not seen as a sin, but mark of cultivation. 
+
===Small Group Discussion===
  
:*Brillat-Savarin, 1825 Physiology of Taste.  introduces word "gastronomy" 42ff.  defines the "gourmand" in terms of enthusiasm about one's appetite and taste for food. analogy to the pleasure of flirtation, which he also claimed was a french invention (!).  "Soft power" (mention slow food, also a political movement).  With greater food security, enjoying food for its own sake change form vice to virtue (mention Happiness history here)
+
:*On our initial dive into the Dobbs decision, we now see that the Court engaged the broad question: "How do we interpret "unenumerated rights".  In that sense the decision was about more than abortionMore like, "How do we update the social contract (as embodied in the constitution) when new liberties arise?" One group advocates and "originalist" approach while the other advocate a "living document" approachIn a small group discussion, consider what you find appealing or negative about these approachesKeep a listYou may also want to consult the list of sample laws for next class discussion.
 
:*Rival, Grimod La Reyniere -- real foodie, spent the revolution eating great food, somewhat abstracted.  Rated restaurants and gave them stickers for their windows.  The discussion here suggests how the vocabulary of the French gastronomic moment developed.
 
 
 
:*54:  Habermas' theory about "Enlightenment eating" -- creates social capitalIssue at the end:  Is the restaurant a bourgeoisie trap or an instrument of enlightenment?
 
 
 
===Re-imagining the Restaurant===
 
 
 
:*Since the opening of the first modern restaurants in Paris around 1780, the concept of the restaurant has developed, especially in the 21st century.  Think of the variety of eateries and restaurants we have now, from food trucks, to traditional fast food, to healthy concept fast food. 
 
 
 
:*Use your philosophical imaginations to think through a new combination of values that a new kind of restaurant might realize.  During our discussion of the Gopnik piece we will develop a list of "restaurant values" -- both of the first modern restaurant and the ones that followed.  Then, in group discussion, try to think about what you can't get from the contemporary array of restaurants, but something you would valueYou ideas may range from things you would like to see more restaurants do to kinds of restaurants that do not exist.
 
 
 
===Ogle, Maureen, ''In Meat We Trust,'' C2, "We Are Here To Make Money"===
 
 
 
:*Tells the story of the rise of the "dressed beef" supply chain, and the fortunes of Swift, an innovator.
 
 
 
:*Opens with Summer 1882 building of Swift's warehouse at the tip of Manhattan.  Backs up to tell the story of the rail monopolies practices of overcharging for shipping costs of live beef.  (29) details.
 
 
 
:*Bringing animals into the city live was becoming impractical, a health hazard, and unsightly (also happenening in Europe, French in the lead in developing the modern ''abattoir''). Note: old slaughterhouses could handle from 1-12 animals a day.  But there were hundreds of them in a city like NY.
 
 
 
:*Boards of Health moving against small butchers. Early modern abattoir: Communipaw. Communipaw abattoir [https://blog.historian4hire.net/2012/11/01/views-of-communipaw/].  Could handle 2,000 animals a day.
 
 
 
:*Courts battles as butchers argued that regulation of their busines was unconstitutional.  The "Slaughterhouse Cases" at the Supreme Court. 
 
 
 
:*Another version of this fight in the Vanderbilt’s proposal to build a big slaughterhouse in central Manhattan.  NIMBY issue with local residents.
 
Vanderbilt gets his stockyard and abattoir at West 59th Street, NYC. 
 
 
 
:*Live shipped animal also suffered in transit, meat damaged, lost 200 pounds. 
 
 
 
:*34-35: initial account of slaughter process.  We’ll see more of this in ethics unit.
 
 
 
:*36: Legal fights over forced closure of private slaughterhouses.  Supreme Court “slaughterhouse cases” affirmed authority of municipalities to regulate slaughter and create municipal slaughterhouses. 
 
 
 
:*40: Before Swift, other entrepreneurs tried shipping dressed beef.  Hammond.  Refrigertor cars (with ice, not compressors) in use and developing. 
 
 
 
:*Swift's success: read at 41.  (get images of Chicago stockyards).  Era of "cheap beef"
 
 
 
:*'''Stop here for todayPart two of this reading for Monday, March 29'''
 
 
 
:*46: Philip Armour story -- not a meat guy, but understood how to corner the market with futures contractsWent to Chicago to build a pork processing plantEnters the New York market along with Swift. 
 
 
 
:*50: Interesting point about meat culture and American culture: read.  Choice meats available to all classes.
 
 
 
:*Meat Ideology -- 19th/early 20th century idea that meat protein is special and accounts for European hegemony.  (add notes: Japan responds by developing "Kobe" meat culture.) 
 
 
 
:*Meat Bubble - profits of 33%, era of free range livestock production with very low costs, ending. 1870: one steer per 5 acres, 1880: one steer per 50-90 acres, due to overgrazing. 52.  Bubble bursts.
 
 
 
:*Margins on dressed beef were actually very low. Demanded high volume to be profitable. Byproducts were important. 
 
 
 
:*Beef Trust -- already a focus on the Railroad Trusts, Congress investigates collusion in pricing. 57ff. 1888.
 
 
 
:*1890: Sherman Antitrust Act.
 

Latest revision as of 19:57, 23 March 2023

17: MAR 23: Unit Three: Roe, Dobbs, and the Search for Basic Liberties

Assigned

  • Kahn Academy, "The Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection" [1]
  • Scotus Brief, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization [2]
  • Alfino, "Interpretation, Political Orientation, and Basic Liberties in the Dobbs Decision" (1-13)
  • Supreme Court of the US, "Excerpts from the Dobbs Decision," (1-13)

Kahn Academy, "The 14th Amendment and equal protection"

  • Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  • prohibitions by Federal gov't to potential state actions. Restates 5th ammentdment as applying to states, not just feds.
  • "equal protection clause"
  • Historical context
  • 1868 - after civil war, 13th abolished slavery, 14th responding to "black codes" - statutes that repressed rights of recently emancipated African Americans.
  • Supreme Court opinion in Plessy v Ferguson: 1896 - separate train car travel. equal but separate is OK! doesn't violate the 14th amendment. (The textbook example of how stare decisis can't be absolute. Widely viewed as a shameful decision.) Reversed by Brown v Board of Education. Separate is not equal. 1954. Took decades to make progress enacting this decision.
  • 14th Amendment key to civil rights arguments. Sexual equality in the workplace. Also pro-life arguments (liberty of the unborn). Quotas in higher education (recent cases pending Summer '23).

SCOTUS Brief, Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization

  • June 2022. Mississippi Gestational Age Act. 15 week abortion limit. Conflict with Roe and Casey.
  • Majority decision:
  • 5 of the 6 (not Roberts) voted to overturn Roe and Casey. Roberts wanted a more moderate approach - allow 15 week bans.
  • Stare Decisis - 5 reasons for overruling. Revisits Roe - invoked complicated argument from several amendments. Casey affirms Roe, but focuses only on 14th am. Abortion rights not found in text or tradition (originalism).
  • Claims not to impact anything but abortion, which involves potential life. Left standing other decisions that seem to depend on Roe. Contraception, same sex relationships. Thomas went further, court should reconsider "due process" cases. Rec alternative approach.
  • Roberts concurrence: Urged more restraint. Throw out the "viability standard" (digression) Accept the Mississippi limit
  • Minority decision:
  • Major claims
  • 1. Majority decision takes rights away from women if they are pregnant.
  • 2. Roe and Casey support a long line of settled cases on privacy, private choices about family matters, sexuality, and procreation. (In a way, Thomas might agree, but want to reconsider those.) 50 years of reliance.

Supreme Court, Excerpts from Dobbs (1-13)

  • Majority Decision
  • Background and context of Roe as departure from history of country. Liberalization was occurring but Roe cut it off. Presents Casey as disputed opinion, not really an endorsement of Roe. Casey was a partial overruling of Roe.
  • p. 5: Major statement of ruling. ....not in history or tradition... (new, originalist, standard for "unenumerated" rights)
  • Long evidentiary argument to support the major premise about history and tradition. Draws conclusion p. 7/25.
  • Discusses Plessy as example of overturning stare decisis.
  • Robert's concurrence: p. 11/7: Throw out the viability standard

Alfino, "Interpretation..." main points (1-13)

  • Basic Intuitions about liberty and abortion:
  • Not unreasonable to say life begins with conception
  • Also, unreasonable to deny that liberty and autonomy are constrained without a right elective of abortion.
  • Abortion rights is a problem of understanding what basic liberties are. Start there.
  • The Dobbs decision:
  • The majority determined indirectly that elective abortion isn't a constitutional right by applying an originalist approach to determining unenumerated rights. That approach is in contrast to the "living document" approach of the minority (and the jurisprudence of privacy of the past 4-6 decades. They left open the possibility that the right could be legislated as a statutory right or prohibited.
  • Originalism - Unenumerated rights must be part of the history and tradition of the country. Without this constraint judicial opinions are too subjective. Interpreting a contract requires finding language in the contract that speaks to the immediate issue.
  • Living document - The meanings of words like "liberty" and "autonomy" change over time. The Framers and Ratifiers intended us to update the meanings of basic terms in light of experience. (Justice Kagan: "We're all originalists." see p. 9 Alfino). Many of our decisions do require applying new meanings or cases not envisioned by the Framers.
  • Political Orientation Issue -- In light of our study of the nature of morality, we can't miss the fact that these different approaches to interpretation reflect fundamentally conservative and liberal political orientations. How should we take that into account if finding a solution to conflicts over basic liberties?

Small Group Discussion

  • On our initial dive into the Dobbs decision, we now see that the Court engaged the broad question: "How do we interpret "unenumerated rights". In that sense the decision was about more than abortion. More like, "How do we update the social contract (as embodied in the constitution) when new liberties arise?" One group advocates and "originalist" approach while the other advocate a "living document" approach. In a small group discussion, consider what you find appealing or negative about these approaches. Keep a list. You may also want to consult the list of sample laws for next class discussion.