Louisiana regulators have decided to appeal a ruling in favor of casket-making monks that found a state law unconstitutional in giving funeral directors exclusive rights to sell caskets. The law has been criticized as a case of a powerful lobby getting politicians to snuff out their competition. Louisiana legislators caved into demands for the protective measures, but Judge Stanwood R. Duval, of the U.S. District Court in New Orleans found that the legislation did not even satisfy the low rational basis test. The regulators are now appealing to the Fifth Circuit.
The monks of the St. Joseph Abbey of Covington have made simple wood caskets to the chagrin of the funeral home lobby. For full disclosure, we buried my father in a casket made by monks on the East Coast. As a lifetime and accomplished wood worker, the simple but elegant casket was much preferred over the garish and gaudy things sold by funeral directors. It was a beautifully hand-made wooden coffin.
Duval saw the law as little more than a monopoly secured from politicians yielding to a well-heeled lobby. He found that “there is no rational basis for the State of Louisiana to require persons who seek to enter into the retailing of caskets to undergo the training and expense necessary to comply with these rules.”
In St. Joseph Abbey v. Castille, Duval noted
With the advent of the internet, consumers can now buy caskets from retailers across the country including Wal-Mart and online retailers such as Amazon.com. (T.T. at 67). This fact is salient in that Louisianians can indeed purchase from these out of state retailers who are not subject to the Act. Indeed, with the exception of an April 13, 2009 Cease and Desist Order issued to National Memorial Planning, the EFD Board has not issued any other Cease and Desist orders to out-of state casket retailers in the last ten years. (Doc. 73, Pretrial Order, Uncontested Material Fact M, at 12). Thus, it is clear that Louisiana consumers are able to buy caskets from anyone out of state—from individuals that are not licensed funeral directors and companies that are not state-licensed funeral establishments. Equally clear is that they do not enjoy this right with respect to in-state retailers. In addition, the cost of these out of state caskets can be substantially less than most caskets offered by licensed funeral directors.
Now, the Louisiana Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors, indicated that his clients will appeal. Of course, any physical requirements for caskets are spelled out by regulation and can be further articulated in code. However, the regulators insist that you need professionals in dealing with people who are grieving. Yet in his stinging decision, Judge Duval noted that “the only persons being protected are the funeral directors of Louisiana and their coffers.”
Source: NOLA
Jonathan Turley
No, despite your continued apologetics there’s plenty of blame to go around, kderosa. That you’re unwilling to put the full blame where it rightly goes – lobbying beyond simple petition – just goes to show what a corporatist shill you really are. Now come on and tell us how your boys the Koch Brothers are engaging in “defensive lobbying”. That’ll be good for a laugh.
Also, English works better if you don’t make up your own definitions like you clearly did with the word “fascism”. You do realize that the father of fascism, Benito Mussolini, preferred the term “corporatism” to describe his baby, don’t you? Apparently not. I’m a liberal. By definition, fascism is anti-liberal. Fascism is also anti-democratic, anti-individualist, anti-capitalistic (in a rather peculiar way in that it’s really anti-competition rather than against making money – fascism endorses private property, a market economy and use of profit motives), anti-bourgeois, anti-egalitarian and anti-proletarian. Fascism also seeks a totalitarian single party state, much like some members of the GOP – name Karl Rove – have sought to create.
I’m egalitarian who is pro-democracy, pro-individual rights (as balanced by the rights of others as opposed to your view of only being concerned with your personal rights and screw everyone else), pro-labor, pro-wealth (just not pro-wealthy criminals using their wealth to escape prosecution, unlike you apparently), pro-middle class and pro-capitalism (albeit regulated). I’m also for breaking the two party/no actual choice system (which is not enshrined in the Constitution) to create a multi-party system to better service the full spectrum of political interests in this country instead of forcing on people what many consider a non-choice; R, D or Ind.
I cannot by definition be a fascist.
You with your pro-business, anti-democratic, pro-oligarchical, anti-labor, anti-competitive apologetics for corporate misdeeds in usurping our government fit the bill quite nicely though.
Thanks for playing though.
Now do you want to try to call me another name instead of coming up with real substantive examples of you holding business accountable for their actions? Because I can turn that back on you every time you try it. Sure, you’ll play the victim, but that’s just funny.
Or are you going to restate some of the “countless” times you’ve found business at fault?
One niggling instance where you still place the blame primarily on government is neither placing fault on business nor “countless times”.
It’s simply more lame empty platitudes and apologetics.
It’s no wonder I don’t take you seriously.
“So lobbying for a corporate agenda in an aggressive way is wrong, but defensive lobbying is okay, and it’s all to the benefit of the legislators? You don’t see the double standard in your statement.”
I see the double standard in your statement. Sadly, your statement misrespresents my position. Let me be clear, businesses “who seeks to gain profit through subsidies, protectionism, government contracts, or other such favorable arrangements with government(s) through political influence” is a bad thing. But defensive lobbying to counter this conduct is little different than seeking redress through the courts, as the monks were forced to do. And legislators obviously benefit from this arrangement as do the businesses who lobby for favors.
“Both parties benefit from a graft situation, kderosa, and defensive lobbying is not going to change that equation except by further increasing the levels of corruption by starting a spending war between private parties for their respective agendas.”
I don’t disagree, but when government allows the situation to exist, but there is not much companies can do to protect themselves from political entrepeneurs except to engage in defensive lobbying. A solution, BTW, is found in Federalist Nos. 10 and 51.
That also addresses your foolishly reasoned second paragraph as well.
It’s also evident from your comment that you place no blame on government for dealing out all the favors and influence and offer nothing to curtail this conduct. Your solution entails nothing more than censorship and more regulation. You really should read the federalist papers and then the anti-federalist papers and learn some political theory.
Last, your third paragraph is self-contradictory and self-refuting. All your qualifiers swallow up your rule. The type of capitalism you want is not capitalism, it’s fascism. So maybe you;re right about the Marx moniker. You’re more a Mussolini.
I understand the difference between market entrepreneurship and political entrepreneurship quite well, kderosa. However, it’s funny that your answer still doesn’t place any blame on the corporate actors. “Then, often, the unfavored group will also get into the influence to protect themselves. This is win-win for legislators.” Really. So lobbying for a corporate agenda in an aggressive way is wrong, but defensive lobbying is okay, and it’s all to the benefit of the legislators? You don’t see the double standard in your statement. Both parties benefit from a graft situation, kderosa, and defensive lobbying is not going to change that equation except by further increasing the levels of corruption by starting a spending war between private parties for their respective agendas.
Why not just place the blame where it really belongs? Which would be the allowance of corporate/business lobbying beyond simply issuing a statement containing their concerns to their representatives with no further input – the exercise of the right to petition. They shouldn’t get private meetings. They shouldn’t be able to let representatives use corporate resources like private jets. They shouldn’t be allowed to draft model legislation (pst! That’s the job of elected officials.) They should be able to get their say and only their say without any other monetary or materials support to officials to influence government away from the business of government which is looking out of the best interest of all and not just the “favored”. This would naturally include disallowing corporate spending on campaigns in addition to limiting lobbying activities. But that would require regulation of corporate behavior now, wouldn’t it? And you can’t have that, can you? You can’t have your cake and eat it too, yet you persist in trying at every opportunity. If you’re serious about corruption, business interests should have no more access or influence upon legislators than the average citizen writing a letter to their representative. It’s that simple. That’s not only a fair and equitable solution, it’s an egalitarian and democratic solution as well. But you’re fine with the oligarchy that spending on campaigns and lobbying creates as long as it’s not political entrepreneurship. I’ve got bad news for you. All corporate lobbying and campaign spending is political entrepreneurship. It’s an investment on which the corporate spenders expect a return. It’s all designed to get more influence than “the other guy” no matter who that “other guy” happens to be. Political money is the problem. The only solution is to remove political money from the system – including your “good lobbyists” too.
Also, I’m not a Marxist no matter how many times you try to sell that. I’m for properly regulated capitalism, i.e capitalism that isn’t allowed to interfere with government either politically or legislatively beyond the simple right to petition, isn’t allowed to push dangerous products and services upon consumers while hiding behind the corporate veil of limited liability, capitalism that doesn’t make every human endeavor about profits instead of people (like health care) and subjects corporate officers to the same kind of criminal penalties for bad actions that a non-corporate actor would be subject to if they didn’t have the corporate veil to hide behind. Jamie Dimon should be in fucking prison for his part in the recent Wall Street debacle. So should Lloyd Blankfein and numerous others who took tax payer money to pay for their crimes and negligence and used it to pay bonuses to the very people who drove the economy into the ditch. Instead, they ply their influence to avoid DOJ and SEC prosecution. The mechanism they use? Corporate lobbyists and campaign donations. That you don’t know the difference between properly regulated capitalism and Marxism says more about you than it does about me, namely that you want rules for others but just not for you and your favored corporatist interests.
There you go again, GeneH
The answer is contained in my reply:
“No, but the legislators do know there are big bucks to be made if they can pass laws favoring one group over another. The favored group will pay to get the laws passed. Then, often, the unfavored group will also get into the influence to protect themselves. This is win-win for legislators. And, you can bet the monks will soon be, if they aren’t already, looking for their own lobbyist.”
This would be lobbying of the bad variety — political entrepreneurship.
from Wikipedia:
I know this distinction between market entrepreneurship and political entrepreneurship as well as the concept of competition is foreign to your Marxist way of thinking, but if you read it a few times, you might begin to understand the distinction.
kderosa,
If that question is too tough, why not answer the original one:
“If corporations are part of the problem, kderosa, why don’t you be specific in how they are part of the problem?”
Why not take this chance to clarify your position on exactly how you think corporations are part of the problem? In specific terms. Clearly you think your position has been misrepresented. Why not take this chance to set the record straight on precisely how corporate behavior has a negative impact on the campaign finance and lobbying mechanisms of this country?
kderosa,
The question as framed is already not a straw man. Just because you say it is a straw man doesn’t make it so. I have not misrepresented your past positions in the slightest.
Either you can restate some of the “countless” times you’ve found business at fault or you cannot.
It’s a valid question based upon your assertion that you have said business was part of the problem “countless times”.
It’s just a question you are unwilling to answer.
@AY, do you mean the way you dodged my questions on source bias up above?
@GeneH, you have access to my comments in the WP control panel and can more easily look up the evidence far easier than I. So go ahead and state a fair strawman-less question and I’ll answer it for you. I need some buy-in first before I waste time on you.
kderosa,
Either your lame apologetic is an empty platitude or your can answer with specifics of corporate wrongdoing. It’s not a straw man at all. Your earlier assertions were refuted when you made them. The above is an encapsulation of your previous lines of argument. You’ve now stated that “[you’ve] stated this countless time which you must have missed” in response to Mike’s saying “you just can’t fault anything business does, can you?”
Either you can restate some of the “countless” times you’ve found business at fault, you can’t, or your words are as described; an empty platitude. Note that this is not a false dilemma as you have choices that cover the entire range of possible responses.
However, AY is likely correct. You won’t answer regardless of how the question is framed. You can’t answer given your previous statements and positions without having to contradict yourself.
KD,
Even if all the strawmen were removed you still wouldn’t answer it…be honest…
GeneH
If you can revise that paragraph to remove all the strawmen, I shouldn’t have any problem answering what I think may be your question.
More lame apologetics from the defender of corporatism.
If corporations are part of the problem, kderosa, why don’t you be specific in how they are part of the problem?
Remember, you can’t say via money passing hands from campaign finance or lobbying as you’ve already defended those actions under the rubric of defending corporate personality, corporate “individual” rights and your refusal to recognize that corporations are a legal fiction created by state charter and as such only have rights the state confers upon them. I suppose you could, but that would simply be another instance of you wanting your cake and to eat it too. If you can’t do this, your blanket assertion that you acknowledge business is at fault is simply a meaningless platitude. So please do regale us with all that you think is wrong with businesses interaction with the political and legal structures in the United States. If you’ve acknowledged that business is part of problem “countless times”, then this should be easy for you.
@Mike Spindell
“Still disingenuous, because it is an immaterial question and one would have to have a great deal of naivete to think it would be material.”
Was that an argument?
“Do you really believe that the legislators in question sat around thinking “How can we get money from the funeral industry, oh I know…let’s pass a law that helps them! Then they’ll be so grateful they’ll give us money”. ”
No, but the legislators do know there are big bucks to be made if they can pass laws favoring one group over another. The favored group will pay to get the laws passed. Then, often, the unfavored group will also get into the influence to protect themselves. This is win-win for legislators. And, you can bet the monks will soon be, if they aren’t already, looking for their own lobbyist.
“Come on kderosa I think you’re smarter and more worldly than that, but you just can’t fault anything business does, can you? In this instance their is guilt on both the business and governmental side.”
I don’t disagree. And, I’ve stated this countless time which you must have missed.
“whether solicited, or offered doesn’t make a bit of difference.”
Motives do matter. If the Monks get into the lobbying business to protect their interests, I think they would be less culpable, since they are acting in defense.
“Unless of course you are impelled by whatever philosophy to deny any business wrongdoing of any kind.”
A strawman.
“What came first, Mike, the chicken or the egg? You seem pretty certain, it is one of them. I think it’s the other.”
Still disingenuous, because it is an immaterial question and one would have to have a great deal of naivete to think it would be material. Do you really believe that the legislators in question sat around thinking “How can we get money from the funeral industry, oh I know…let’s pass a law that helps them! Then they’ll be so grateful they’ll give us money”. Come on kderosa I think you’re smarter and more worldly than that, but you just can’t fault anything business does, can you? In this instance their is guilt on both the business and governmental side. whether solicited, or offered doesn’t make a bit of difference. Unless of course you are impelled by whatever philosophy to deny any business wrongdoing of any kind.
@AY, I’m confused, explain to me how “bias” and “Cato money” affects a paragraph like the following from the LR:
Did they misrepresent or misquote Dartmouth College v. Woodward?
Did you know about Marshall’s decision in Dartmouth College v. Woodward? before your read the LR? Is the decision and the rationale behind the decision somehow invalid because the authors summarizing the decision work for a think tank?
Are only Harvard, Princeton, Texas or say even Michigan employed attorneys capable of presenting a summary of that case?
I’m curious how you bias argument plays out in the real world. You don’t have to accept the authors opinions and conclusions and you should certainly recognize that advocacy is going on in the LR (they wrote an amicus brief for Citizens United after all), but a large portion of the LR is going to discuss past judicial decisions and I don;t see how those decisions are affected.
@AY
“On blogs like the Volokh Conspiracy and Balkinization, law professors analyze legal developments with skill and flair almost immediately after they happen. ”
The lead author is a contributor at Volokh Conspiracy and many of the arguments in the LR originated there as well. Thanks for making that point for me.
@Mike Spindell
“Stick with the disingenuous by restating the obvious and making it appear to be a valid point.”
Mike, it’s hard to tell what will be obvious to you.
“This relieves you of having to argue the innocence of the LA Funeral Directors. We ALL know who passes these laws, but the issue is who influences their passage.”
I guess it wasn’t so obvious.
What came first, Mike, the chicken or the egg? You seem pretty certain, it is one of them. I think it’s the other. If there were no favors to pass out, there’d be no money and lobbying efforts chasing those non-existent favors.
Gene,
Many communities have a cremation society. Check Google or your phone book for “Cremation Society.” In addition to a reasonable fee, they will give you a standard mass produced urn, or a temporary one. The temporary ones may be either cardboard or plastic. You can get urns online if you wish, or make your own from wood, ceramic or whatever suits your fancy. Many cemeteries will let you bury a cremation urn of your choosing without a vault. Our cemetery will not because they have had some bad experiences with people wanting to dig up Grandma when they move so a vault is required. Those can be simple or fancy.
I buried a friend in the National Cemetery recently. He was cremated and his temporary urn was cardboard. He was an environmentalist and wanted a natural burial. The National Cemetery staff and honor guard treated that simple box with as much reverence as if he were in a full sized military grade steel or bronze casket. They did not bury him in a vault, but put the dirt back in his grave on that cardboard box.