Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Holmes and the Empty Constitution
The Objective Standard ^ | Summer 2009 | Thomas A. Bowden

Posted on 06/16/2009 10:36:36 AM PDT by AreaMan

Summer 2009Vol. 4, No. 2

This article is from TOS Vol. 4, No. 2. The full contents of the issue are listed here.

Justice Holmes and the Empty Constitution

On April 17, 1905, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. issued his dissenting opinion in the case of Lochner v. New York.1 At a mere 617 words, the dissent was dwarfed by the 9,000 words it took for the Supreme Court’s eight other Justices to present their own opinions. But none of this bothered Holmes, who prided himself on writing concisely. “The vulgar hardly will believe an opinion important unless it is padded like a militia brigadier general,” he once wrote to a friend. “You know my view on that theme. The little snakes are the poisonous ones.”2

Of the many “little snakes” that would slither from Justice Holmes’s pen during his thirty years on the Supreme Court, the biting, eloquent dissent in Lochner carried perhaps the most powerful venom. A dissent is a judicial opinion in which a judge explains his disagreement with the other judges whose majority votes control a case’s outcome. As one jurist put it, a dissent “is an appeal . . . to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes the court to have been betrayed.”3 Holmes’s Lochner dissent, though little noticed at first, soon attained celebrity status and eventually became an icon. Scholars have called it “the greatest judicial opinion of the last hundred years” and “a major turning point in American constitutional jurisprudence.”4 Today, his dissent not only exerts strong influence...


(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: constituion; holmes; law; lochner; lochnervnewyork; philosophy; scotus; supremecourt
OMG (as the kids like to say) is this article long and ponderous...but ultimately important, in my opinion.

Not being a philosopher or attorney (not even playing one on TV) I was unaware of Holmes' influence on Constitutional interpretation.
He (Holmes) comes across as a nihilist douche.

1 posted on 06/16/2009 10:36:37 AM PDT by AreaMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AreaMan


Excellent article. Thanks for the post.

2 posted on 06/16/2009 4:25:18 PM PDT by Jagermonster (The 2009 Debt Stimulus: This time, it really is for the children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jagermonster

It seems like you and I are the only ones who think so.

3 posted on 06/17/2009 8:33:24 AM PDT by AreaMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson