Missouri Hair Braiders

[Pertinacious Tom]

Missouri Hair Braiders

That four year old case came to an unusual end in the Supreme Court.
 

The U.S. Supreme Court today effectively brought to an end a four-year challenge to Missouri’s licensing of African-style hair braiders. The braiders, working with the Institute for Justice (IJ), challenged the state’s requirement that they spend thousands of dollars on 1,500 hours of cosmetology training even though the training did not cover braiding. Earlier this year, the Missouri General Assembly exempted braiders from the cosmetology license and established a new specialty braiding license requiring that braiders pay a fee of $20, watch a four- to six-hour instructional video and submit to board inspections.

“Today’s action by the U.S. Supreme Court vacates an appeals court ruling that upheld the state’s old, burdensome licensing regulations,” said IJ attorney Dan Alban. “The 8th Circuit’s opinion conflicted with braiding decisions from lower federal courts, with decisions from other federal circuit courts, and decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court itself. By vacating that unfavorable opinion, the Court clears the way for these issues to be litigated in a future challenge to oppressive occupational licensing regimes.”

Because IJ’s lawsuit challenged the previous requirement that braiders obtain a cosmetology or barber license in order to braid hair for a living, the new law made the dispute hypothetical, or, in legal terms, moot. After the law took effect in August, both IJ and the state attorney general filed a joint suggestion of mootness and motion for vacatur with the U.S. Supreme Court.

...

“We’re glad that our four-year fight for braiding freedom is finally drawing to a close,” said braider Tameka Stigers, who owns and operates the Locs of Glory braiding salon in St. Louis. “We would like to see the Cosmetology Board finish creating the new registration process for braiders. We have a right to braid hair for a living without any further uncertainty about the legality of our businesses under Missouri law.”

It's called Munsingwear Vacatur and it's not just something that sounds like it might require diapers.

The bolded part is why it's important. When people who don't appreciate the need for public safety regulations challenge things like the "need" for 1,500 hours of training that does not cover braiding hair to braid hair, the 8th Circuit precedent won't stand in the way.

 

[BeSafe]

Good!

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Good!

Move to Somalia if you don't like sensible government regulations!

 

[BeSafe]

  I don't know if I'd go THAT far but I do believe that regulations, particularly pertaining to licenses, has run amok in some states.  

I understand.  I've had a few bad contractors in my life and it's frustrating and people think 'there ought to be a law...' but pretty soon, Timmy's Lemonade stand is considered a small business and he has to get a food prep license and proper fire response plan (metaphor of course).

For all the talk about minorities and poor people, these laws almost always tend to disproportionately affect those communities first and most harshly.  One of the few things that Democrats and Republicans seem to agree is that's OK in service of the 'greater good'.  

The practical response seems to then be 'selective enforcement' which to me, is literally a root cause of 'road to hell, best intentions, etc.'   Who gets to decide when it's enforced?  What does someone have to do to look the other way?  Yea, nothing bad ever comes from that.

I'm glad there's a potential remedy.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

  I don't know if I'd go THAT far but I do believe that regulations, particularly pertaining to licenses, has run amok in some states.  

I think that's because regulating business has become part of tribal identity. If someone says, "We should reduce some of these business regulations" what is heard is "GO TRUMP!!!" And so you get, "Move to Somalia."

And the discussion never gets to the subject of whether one needs 1,500 hours of training (that doesn't cover braiding hair) in order to braid hair.

I understand.  I've had a few bad contractors in my life and it's frustrating and people thing 'there ought to be a law...'

I get that too. And government does a lot to protect and support a business like Locs of Glory. Cops if they're attacked, courts if they're defrauded, roads leading to their doors, etc. It's reasonable for the government to say, "We're only doing all that if you're a REAL hair braiding business."

We just can't talk about what that might mean in terms of regulations that are necessary.

 

[BeSafe]

We just can't talk about what that might mean in terms of regulations that are necessary.

Agreed.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

The revised requirements for hair braiders:

Earlier this year, the Missouri General Assembly exempted braiders from the cosmetology license and established a new specialty braiding license requiring that braiders pay a fee of $20, watch a four- to six-hour instructional video and submit to board inspections.

The fee doesn't seem burdensome and probably just covers the cost of collecting and not very many board inspections.

Whatever those are in the context of a hair braiding business.

I wonder why they would be needed?

I can actually think of a public health use for such an instructional video. My parents had a friend who was a doctor. Middle aged, good health, got some blood on his hand while shampooing one day and was dead not long after. Melanoma. He had a nice head of hair. Who looks there? Well, someone who is messing with your hair.

 

[jocal505]

Hi Tom. Does the Kelo Whiz braid his own hair?

Because beauty parlor licences can be granted or denied, based on race. We cant have them any more, for that reason.

How can I dumb this thread down, the way Japan dumbs down the discussion of gun suicide in the USA?

Is this a good thread to get myself confused about battle guns, the gunshow loophole, and the transfer travesty?

The word Chicago is a thread stopper code word. Will it work to stop these rampant beauty license infractions?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

How can I dumb this thread down

Same way as usual. Just hit "Submit Reply."

 

[jocal505]

Same way as usual. Just hit "Submit Reply."

Dumbing it down at will, is the dogballs dogballs dogballs gag, everywhere I go, for 22 months. You have a bone in your teeth.

Yo, you need to avoid using MIssouri material. Missouri got hammered by gun deaths after they canned their background checks in 2008. You introduced stable violent crime figures to dispute that...and linked me to it, like a dumbass.

Missouri, 2014 Webster Study, Journal of Urban Health

Using death certificate data available through 2010, the repeal of Missouri’s PTP law was associated with an increase  in annual firearm homicides rates of

 (+23 %) but was unrelated to changes in non-firearm homicide rates.

 Using Uniform Crime Reporting data from police through 2012, the law’s repeal was associated with increased annual murders rates of (+16 %).

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-014-9865-8

DOUBLE DIGITS. It was the third time I had caught you doing it. Earlier, when accused of mixing in violent crime stats by myself, you had denied doing so.  Hmmm... I had to start documenting your shit.

I documented your lying ass Missouri move, and you just  lied further, in red letters, claiming you cited gun murders. Want to see it all again?

Tom Cooks the Missouri Numbers, serves them to Sean, post 35

Most violent crimes do not involve guns. But RTC guns cause violent crime to increase 13% to 15% in the new RTC areas. Source, John Donohue.

 

[Raz'r]

Missouri Hair Braiders

That four year old case came to an unusual end in the Supreme Court.
 

It's called Munsingwear Vacatur and it's not just something that sounds like it might require diapers.

The bolded part is why it's important. When people who don't appreciate the need for public safety regulations challenge things like the "need" for 1,500 hours of training that does not cover braiding hair to braid hair, the 8th Circuit precedent won't stand in the way.

Wait a minute counselor, looks like the law changed so the appeals court ruling was made moot. Ain’t that a big “duh” from the Supremes?

and about time for the state. 

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Wait a minute counselor, looks like the law changed so the appeals court ruling was made moot.

No, changing the law meant that ruling would stand unless SCOTUS vacated in their Munsingwear.

 

[Raz'r]

No, changing the law meant that ruling would stand unless SCOTUS vacated in their Munsingwear.

If you say so, but sounds like spin. Glad the state fixed their regs.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

If you say so, but sounds like spin. Glad the state fixed their regs.

I'm not really sure they're "fixed" since they don't yet have a video. It might be pretty worthless or might be useful.

The "spin" was mentioned in the topic article:

Because IJ’s lawsuit challenged the previous requirement that braiders obtain a cosmetology or barber license in order to braid hair for a living, the new law made the dispute hypothetical, or, in legal terms, moot. After the law took effect in August, both IJ and the state attorney general filed a joint suggestion of mootness and motion for vacatur with the U.S. Supreme Court.

So "my spin" was the joint suggestion of both parties and was accepted and acted upon by the Supreme Court. My powers are awesome that way. Or maybe I just understand stuff I read and talk about it.

 

[jocal505]

Or maybe I just understand stuff I read and talk about it.

Do you understand The Standard Model? We find you won't talk about it.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Do you understand The Standard Model? We find you won't talk about it.

Sure. A quick search for standard hair braiding model revealed this example:

Calling her an "it" is just rude, even if she does look a bit volatile to people like yourself.

I think she's pretty.

 

[jocal505]

I think she's pretty.

Same. I could have danced all  night.

Or maybe I just understand stuff I read and talk about it.

Do you understand and support Scalia's history, which is known as The Standard Model?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

You are correct that running a business is a giant PITA. You will not get an argument from me on that. I think it would be great if we could make it easier, and I believe we can. I just don't agree that the way to make it easier is to remove taxes, licenses, and regulations.

It might make sense sometimes. Possible?

 

[BeSafe]

 When I read Len's comment, I thought I might see it relocated!   B)