The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Breyer Is Forever Afflicted With Lochnerphobia
No, Lochner was not "about pure laissez faire."
During arguments in Dobbs, Justice Breyer continued his long-standing jeremiad against Lochner. Here, Breyer said that during the Depression, Lochner became unsustainable because it required "pure laissez faire."
They said, are you going to sit here in the middle of the Depression and tell me that --that Lochner, with its other cases, and pure, just about pure laissez faire, we can run the country that way.
No, Lochner and related cases did not mandate "pure laissez faire." Contrary to Justice Holmes's dissent, the majority did not "decide upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain," namely, "laissez faire" capitalism. Remember, Justice Peckham's majority opinion upheld all aspects of the New York Bakeshop Act but one: the maximum hours provision. Indeed, all nine Justices agreed that the Bakeshop Act's health and safety regulations were valid exercises of the state's police power. Both the majority and the dissent upheld the regulations concerning ventilation, ceiling heights, the location of washrooms, and the cleanliness of floors in bakeries. Not even close to "pure laissez faire" capitalism.
Regrettably, Justice Breyer is forever afflicted with Lochnerphobia. But you know what solved Lochner? West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, a case that returned the Court to scrupulous neutrality.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The blackman kid's use of quotation marks in this piece is a little bit unfair. Both in the subhead and in the body of the piece;
subhead: "about pure laissez faire"
body: "pure laissez faire"
Taking the time to quote someone should involve at least a rudimentary attempt to relate what they actually said.
Here's what Breyer actually said;
"just about pure laissez faire"
Where "just about" means nearly.
The blackman kid worked up his use of quotation marks to change the meaning of what Breyer said.
There are no shortage of prior arguments that laissez-faire constitutionalism during the lochner era is a myth. Interestingly, when damon root wrote a piece today about this topic (on the main reason site), he mentioned none of them. That's probably because a lot of those arguments suck.
This.
That's just scholarship, South Texas-style!
Your quibble is noted, and discarded in light of not being even close to "just about". This is like choosing to complain that paraphrasing "JFK airport is in New York City" is as wrong as saying "JFK airport is in Chicago".
You're trying to compare a difference of degrees to a difference of kind.
You don't need to white knight for Blackman.
You don't understand analogies much.
And I enjoy baiting you Josh haters. You are irrational, jealous, and not very good at disguising it as competent criticism.
I pointed out why your analogy (a difference in kind) does not parallel Blackman's elision (a difference in degree).
Oh, I'm not envious of Blackman at all, I *love* my current job. And I think it's notable that those with no love for him tend to be the lawyers among us.
" Your quibble is noted, "
Your lack of understanding is noted, you bigoted, half-educated, right-wing loser.
Get an education, clinger. Backwater religious schooling -- or anything associated with a nonsense-teaching, conservative-controlled institution -- does not count.
Here's a nickel, kid, get yourself a real argument.
As if government meddling, central planning and regulations protecting incumbent business has been a blessing to anyone other than politicians, big business and the collusion between the two. Overturning Lochner might be the Reverend’s wet dream but it has done nothing but create a cronyist system that instead of being “horrible capitalist” is more akin to fascism or state corporatism.
Coming out for child labor and sweatshops is a bold move.
Really?
Dude came out against government regulations of business, with no limiting principle even glanced at.
That's some strong libertarian ideals-over-reality stuff right there. Ignorant of the consequences history has taught us over and over again worldwide.
Someone needs to give Blackman a tranquilizer.