If anyone can help me understand the thought processes of the Supreme Court Justices, I'd be eternally grateful. One day they support the Second Amendment, the next they violate the Fifth. They struck down a narrow (albeit, heinous) accounting rule, but left Sarbanes-Oxley standing.
Sure, I understand that even Clarence Thomas is no intellectual. But how this glaring inconsistency can be justified, pun intended, is beyond me. Even from the standpoint of a Pragmatist, their rulings make no sense.
Have they no understanding whatever of the concept "property rights?" Does the Commerce Clause trump everything? Did they learn nothing from Nixon's disastrous experiment with price controls? Can they not observe the precipitous fall in the rate of new IPOs? Are they completely ignorant of the idea that controls that violate property rights only lead to still more controls, until even the very idea of limited government becomes nothing more than an historical artifact?
Apparently, the SCOTUS majority is no more knowledgeable about economics — and its fundamental support from natural rights theory — than the average Congressman.