Talk:United States v. Carolene Products Co.

Authorship of the Footnote
"According to some lore, repeated in constitutional law classes around the nation, the language was planted by a forward thinking law clerk."

This isn't just lore, it's well-documented history. The first paragraph was included at the urging of Hughes; Stone's clerk wrote the last two paragraphs, or was at least "substantially responsible" for them. (See Democracy and Distrust, p. 76, and the note on p. 222, as well as read http://www.jstor.org/view/00101958/ap030646/03a00020/0 and http://www.jstor.org/view/00101958/ap030797/03a00050/0).

Stone's clerk wasn't just "some guy." He was Louis Lusky, 1st in his class at Columbia, later esteemed law professor there. Ryanluck 01:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

According to American Constitutional Interpretation, (Barber, Fleming, Macedo and Murphy), "Stone turned to his clerk, Louis Lusky [...] to draft the footnote and accepted, almost without change, what Lusky wrote." (3rd ed. pp683) Barber et al also write that Stone used this tactic of, "planting seeds of jurisprudence" in a footnote in other cases as well. Thinkgood (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

merger
Since Filled Milk Act is extremely short, I propose to merge it into this article. (In fact, if you agree, just go ahead.) Proposed as part of the Notability Wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's really not much to merge. All the info is already in the article.  I'm just going to redirect it. --NMChico24 01:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
The section, as it is, is extremely shallow, and doesn't capture the gist of Miller's argument; indeed, it makes Miller look like a buffoon who doesn't know what he's talking about. From my extremely cursory review of the article, he seems to call for a reinterpretation rational-basis review, such that the court would be empowered to strike down cases clearly arising out of special interests, which would have interesting interactions with the political questions doctrine. As it is, I haven't the time to expend to do a fuller reading of Miller's article, but if anyone with access to JSTOR is willing to expand on it, that would add a great deal to the article itself. I will probably add some brief expansion when I can formulate it (and have time). Lockesdonkey (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * More important than whether Miller's views have been properly represented, I have no idea from reading the article who Miller is and why his view of the case matters more than anyone else's (or at all). This is the same issue with most criticism sections in articles; there's no apparent reason why they've been included and they're not contextualized in any way.  Editors just throw in a bunch of quotes without any real selection criteria.  I think such a section can only start properly with a secondary source commenting on the criticism.  Without such an overview, it's all arbitrary and meaningless, and it should just be removed.  postdlf (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've taken the section out for now. It's just a quote with no summary.  postdlf (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Dubious
See the switch in time that saved nine, which in part touches on the issue of the accuracy of the traditional account that Roosevelt's court packing plan had a real effect on SCOTUS rulings. I don't have particular sources at this time, but my understanding is it's become fairly well accepted that the switch was coming anyway. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)