[Update a couple minutes later]
Here‘s a piece from Slate that I missed a year ago. No one seems to offer a single reason not to go this route, other than “it requires study.” It’s been obvious to me (as I said) for years.
I assume, or at least hope, that if the farmer wins, it will open up a lot of other lawsuits, to dismantle all this nonsense that goes back to the New Deal. It’s the Commerce Clause run amok.
When I was in college, I interned for a criminal defense attorney who told me that although most people, including defense lawyers, assumed that the FBI lab was a gold standard, he always sent stuff to an independent lab for verification, and half the time it came back with a different result from the FBI lab. He said he didn’t understand why more lawyers didn’t do that, since a different result in itself might produce reasonable doubt.
The amount of injustice in our “justice” system is increasingly disturbing. And there are rarely any consequences for it, except to those unjustly punished.
…for people to want to obey the law for reasons that go beyond avoiding punishment, several things have to be true. First, they must generally approve of the law: Maybe not of every individual provision, but they have to believe that, in general, the laws are just rather than unfair. Second, they have to feel reasonably confident that most others will obey the law, too: People like to feel like good citizens, but they don’t like to feel like suckers. Finally, they have to feel as if the people in charge also respect the law. Examples are set at the top, and if the government treats unwelcome laws as unworthy of respect, you can expect the populace to feel the same way.