Tenth Annual Rosenkranz Debate: Lochner v. New York

RESOLVED: Lochner v. New York: Still Crazy After All These Years.
The Tenth Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 18, 2017, during The Federalist Society's 2017 National Lawyers Convention.
--Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School
--Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown University Law Center
--Moderator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
--Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society

[@ericj1234]

I wonder what ACB thought of the debate. She had a front row seat.

[@glennphelps6277]

I just got a text from f de d F free fe des s

[@juanl6401]

Wouldn’t have recognized her😊

[@lgladsteph]

"we are among friends here no need to spread the words."
wait till Prof. Amar sees the 6k views on youtube

[@MrJoeybabe25]

It's tiresome to have arguments based on flawed prior case rationalizations, not so much in court, but on the debate stage.

[@MrJoeybabe25]

I think a contract is an attempt by two or more parties NOT TO gamble and have some some assurance that what they expect from the other party will be fulfilled.

[@MrJoeybabe25]

Isn't favoring the "have-nots" over the "haves" a violation of equal protection?

[@judybohl7789]

I liked Amar's book. All Americans should read it.

[@meirlieberman2486]

Professor Barnett defends the Lochner decision to deregulate on the basis of privileges and immunities clause. He supports the argument by showing the court's reasoning in the regulation being arbitrary to bakers - especially when more dangerous jobs exist. He then champions the methodology, of what is essentially, strict scrutiny for any challenge a citizen can bring. He doesn't support why this methodology makes sense given the facts of the case and shirks off professor Amar's arguments over the clear health and safety concerns by saying the methodology is all that matters. This is bad faith political grandstanding.

[@MrAngrybaldguy]

He just comes off as slimey.

[@joshuahawkins9847]

I actually thought he made a good point about the overall essence of liberty of contract but I think he had a hard time disputing the facts Amar brought to the table with regards to the conditions of the baking industry. That law specifically probably wasn’t irrational and arbitrary but I agree with him on the broader point that courts shouldn’t simply defer to legislatures

[@michaelblair7348]

How does one contract Barnett Disease? What are the most effective means of prophylaxis? Is there a cure?

[@kevingoldsmithID]

I plan on reading a couple of professor Amar's books, but I think even his supporters would concede that Randy Barnett is infinitely more articulate.

[@MrJohnBonett]

Kevin Goldsmith Not just that, but I found the substance of Amar’s argument shockingly weak

[@simonb4664]

Propertarian =/= libertarian