How Deeply Rooted is Cronyism in American Government? 2nd Circuit Calls it The Essence of Politics

A teeth whitening service in Connecticut sued the state, arguing that the state regulatory rule banning anyone but dentists from performing the simple whitening procedure should be overturned because its only purpose was to shield one favored group from competition.

The Court sided with Cronyism, ruling in part:

"Even if the only conceivable reason for the LED restriction was to shield licensed dentists from competition," the 2nd Circuit declared, "economic favoritism" is a sufficient justification all by itself. "Much of what states do is to favor certain groups over others on economic grounds," the court said. "We call this politics."

When I went to school, our system was described to me as "majority rule with minority protections".  The American system was never supposed to allow for the arbitrary sacrifice of one group to another just because the first group can manufacture more votes.


  1. J_W_W:

    The mask, it continues to slip....

  2. HenryBowman419:

    I suspect that the judges have been exposed to so much corruption for so long that they can no longer recognize such. I have observed similar traits amongst Cook County, Illinois, voters. They literally can no longer recognize corruption.

  3. kidmugsy:

    "The American system was never supposed to allow for the arbitrary sacrifice of one ...": call me a cynic, but I'll bet that the American system allowed that from the beginning.

  4. Daniel Nylen:

    We lost that argument over 100 years ago when the court bifurcated our rights, allowing that some weren't as important (business property rights). Now after generations of rational review and getting used to rule by mob, we don't have them anymore.

  5. slocum:

    Terrible decision. But keep in mind that it's not the last or only legal word on the subject:

    "That judgment is in direct conflict with comparable rulings by the 5th Circuit, the 6th Circuit, and the 9th Circuit, all of which have flatly rejected the dangerous notion that naked economic protectionism is a legitimate government interest."

  6. Joe:

    I am a CPA in Texas. The state board of public accountancy goes to great lengths to ensure that no bookkeeping services use the term 'accountant" or accounting in their name or advertising. Same with any tax services preparing tax returns. This is done to protect the CPA cartel.
    The reality is those bookkeeping services and tax services are not competing with me or with the CPA profession. There is virtually zero overlap on our client base. Quite frankly most CPA's are ill equipped to serve that client base, and on the flip side, most of those bookkeeping services/tax services are ill equipped to serve the CPA client base. Yet the State board remains very aggressive in enforcing the cartel.

  7. J K Brown:

    It's an old argument/excuse.

    Here is the response of Elizabeth I in regards to the monopolies she granted and which led to Statute of Monopolies:

    ...that never since she had been queen "did I put my pen to any grant
    but upon pretence made to me that it was good and benefi-
    cial to the subjects in general, though a private profit to
    some of my ancient servants who had deserved well. Never
    thought was cherished in my heart which tended not to
    my people's good."

  8. Scott:

    sure. but it wasn't supposed to.

  9. Rick Caird:

    The history of this country is the history of the courts being captured by politics.