Conventional wisdom holds that the "Lochner" Court
illegitimately used the Constitution's due process clauses to
strike down Progressive legislation designed to protect the poor
and powerless against big business. This book systematically
examines all of the U.S. Supreme Court's substantive due process
cases from 1897 through 1937 and finds that they do not support
long-held beliefs about the "Lochner" Court. The Court was more
Progressive than commonly imagined, striking down far fewer laws on
substantive due process grounds than is generally believed. The
laws it overturned were not invariably social legislation, and
relatively few due process cases involved freedom of contract.
Moreover, Holmes, despite his reputation as a Great Dissenter,
joined many of the cases striking down government action.
The book attacks three familiar normative criticisms of the
"Lochner" Court. It accerts that (1) the Court's substantive due
process decisions almost certainly were not motivated by a
conscious desire to assist business by suppressing social
legislation; only sometimes did the justices' nostalgia for
laissez-faire lead to this result; (2) the conservative justices'
understanding of business and government often exceeded that found
in the typical Brandeis Brief; and (3) most applications of
"Lochner"-era substantive due process cannot readily be described
as illegitimate assertions of judicial power lacking justification
in the due process clauses.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!