.Even when they are not,'by abundant testimony of the medical fraternity continuancefor a -long time on her feet at work,' repeating this from day today, tends to injurious effects upon the body
The same is true for men, but likely not noticed or focused on by doctors because there is no focus on them having to carry children
although not- the wisest or best, are yet'not plainly and palpably unauthorized by law, then the courtcannot interfere
Isn't this from the dissent in Lochner? Wasn't the stance of the majority that the state needed to prove the restriction was justifiable?
The statute of Oregon of 1903 providing that no female shall work in certainestablishments more than ten hours a day is not unconstitutional so faras resjects laundries.
The last part of this line "as respects laundries", seems to indicate that it varies from job to job, and that the court might find that for certain jobs, it is beyond the police power of the state to regulate them.
This... this line is chilling. Palantir, Curtis Yarvin, etc. It also ignores that Jim Crow wasn't passed by the majority public opinion. It was enacted into law by a small group of elected officials elected by the majority of the white voting public. Most people don't vote, and in many areas, the population that wasn't White was greater or equal to the White population, but still didn't have a say. The system is not actually the majority opinion. Additionally, information is still filtered by someone, with all their biases, and the biases they built into the computer