Legal System

In November 1996, the journal First Things published a symposium that sharply criticized recent federal court decisions on abortion, euthanasia, and homosexual rights. 

Conservatives, at least since the "Impeach Earl Warren" days, have viewed the Supreme Court with less than full enthusiasm. Are we too critical?

The coalition of government bureaucrats, politicians, trial lawyers, and "political activists" who have orchestrated the demonization of "Big Tobacco" are about to wage a similar smear campaign against what the pressure group Common Cause has labeled "Big Booze." The beer, wine, and liquor industries will be demonized; dramatically higher taxes will be called for; and unconstitutional bans and restrictions on commercial advertising will be vigorously lobbied for. This was the political modus operandi of the anti-smoking movement, and it will now be carried over to other industries.

In the nineteenth century, the legal profession was open. There were no mandates on the kind or duration of education a person had to have. No law restricted anyone from offering his services. The only complaints were from lawyers who wanted to force "higher standards" upon the market.

In the midst of an economic boom, strange things were happening at General Motors. Huge swatches of its highly paid, coddled, unionized labor force were on strike. The result was catastrophic: GM plants all over North America shut down.

Recent mergers and acquisitions reach out and touch everyone. In turn, everyone wants to participate in the wave of executive soul-searching. It's true that parties affected by large transactions can occasionally assist in refining corporate values. But make no mistake about the dynamics of control: almost anyone would claim a seat at the bargaining table for a chance of lucrative reward. These seats are in fork's range of shares of the pie.

Thomas DiLorenzo defends tying agreements and exclusive contracts.

The civil rights juggernaut has now invaded sports, that one-time redoubt of pure merit and standing embarrassment for affirmative action. Not only does this latest beachhead presage significant real-world consequences, it reveals something of the strategy of the privilege lobby.

Around the country, sports entrepreneurs have been responding to a perceived social problem by doing what they do best: efficiently serving customers. The advent of the work-out craze led to the blossoming of a prospering health-club industry. Along with growth, however, came certain problems, some of which are the result of men and women using the same fitness facilities.

Recent blows to quotas in public employment and education such as California's Prop. 209 and the Hopwood decision have spurred efforts to entrench racial preference more securely in the private sphere. This has inspired its advocates to invent strange defenses that were undreamed-of thirty-four years ago, when quotas were introduced. Among the most perverse is that quotas are economically beneficial.