Nothing against platinum blonde hair...
Posted on 03/03/2014 2:49:41 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Facial hair and teeth-whitening will be getting unusually prominent attention from the Supreme Court.
The court agreed Monday to hear two cases during its next term that involve matters of personal hygiene in vastly different settings.
In one case, the court will decide whether an Arkansas prison inmate must be allowed to grow a short beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.
(...)
Separately, the high court is taking up a North Carolina case in which the state's dental regulatory board argues that only dentists should be allowed to whiten teeth.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
As much as I'm sure they'd love to, they'd never pull that off. This is probably a typical case where they're trying to erect barriers to entry into their profession and criminalize anyone competing with them without being a club member.
I’m surprised they didn’t also request a ban on any toothbrushes other then those soft bristle ones that don’t remove plaque.
I'm more inclined to think it pertains to tooth-whitening compounds that can be purchased without prescription.
I paid my dentist around $400 for a set of custom-made "trays" to hold the small amounts of peroxide bleach that are required for a treatment. Once I owned those trays, there was no need for me to ever see my dentist for whitening again, since I had the trays and could simply order the peroxide from Amazon. The same is true for the whitening kits you can purchase at any drugstore, though without the customized trays they're far less effective.
I think dentists want to take that option out of consumers' hands and acquire a monopoly on the entire process.
Yeah, I'll get right on that.
At the next TCMS, we can have a Wax Gunner party. Heh.
Y’all can blast me or cap me or hack me into little pieces and laugh about it..
But you ain’t a-gonna be waxin’ me.
And M.D's opposed the advent of EMTs, back in the day.
Yeah, but it sure was fun imagining that scene.
did they really?
I’d respond to that but I’m late for my mani-pedi appointment.
I've been brushing my "tooth" wrong all this time...:^)
Here is something no one seems to know. Circumstances led me to start an investigation. I am an attorney and have access to all the usual legal databases. I’m on my second petition of certiorari to the Supreme Court in the last six months - same issue. I expect to be ignored a second time. Same issue the SCOTUS has ignored for decades.
Every government entity, except one, is subject to the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments.
Anyone care to guess?
1. Under the Sherman Antitrust Act, monopolies are illegal. There is, however, a "state action" exception; if one of the states, acting in its governmental capacity, creates a monopoly, the Sherman Act doesn't apply. That's why a state can pass a law forbidding non-lawyers from practicing law or non-dentists from practicing dentistry. Every state has laws like that.
2. In this case, North Carolina defines the "practice of dentistry" to include tooth-whitening, so spas and places like that can't do it.
3. If the North Carolina Legislature had written that provision into law, it might be stupid but it would clearly be exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act because it would be the official action of the State.
4. But in this case, the State Legislature didn't write that restriction into a law; it instead passed a law saying that the practice of dentistry is regulated by the State Dentistry Board and that the State Dentistry Board is elected by the dentists in the state. That board enacted the tooth-whitening rule.
5. The Federal Trade Commission challenged the rule, saying that the state-action exception shouldn't apply because the rule was made by the dentists themselves, who have an economic interest in eliminating competition from non-dentists. The lower court (4th Circuit) agreed with the FTC.
6. The State of North Carolina appealed to SCOTUS, arguing that when the dentists made this rule, they were acting under authority delegated by the State, so the state action exception should apply.
Which is all a long way of saying that the specific issue before the Court is not teeth-whitening per se, but whether states can delegate their power to regulate professions to the people in that profession itself. So the conflict is between state authority and federal antitrust law.
imagine the confusion amongst all those folks whove bought Teeth Whitening Products...
Thank you.
Maybe they’ll rediscover the Commerce Clause. That would be delightful. Oh, for the Lochner days!
Teeth shaving and beard whitening are probably more suitable for you.
But homeschooling German seeking religious asylum - Ahh - go scratch!!
Was that taken for ‘Bell, Book, and Candle’?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.