Progressivism 105But recallanothergovernistappearinginThe Corporation, EdwinBlack.Thistime,
EdwinBlackdisclosesa fact aboutJusticeBrandeisthatHofstadterandMonksfailedto
disclose.It is this. As a U.S.SupremeCourtJustice,Brandeis—who,in Hofstadter’s
words,“assailed” socialDarwinism—votedthe samerulingas JusticeHolmesin 1927’s
Buckv. Bell. BothBrandeisandHolmesaffirmedthe legalityof U.S.stategovernments’
forciblesterilizationof U.S.citizens.^15 HadBrandeisverilybeenthe “lawyer” for all of
“the people,” thenin this casehe let his clientsdown.To giveyouan ideaof howmuch
JusticeBrandeishad betrayedfreedomwiththis decision,I will quoteMattRidley.Siding
withHolmesand sevenotherjustices,Brandeis“ruledthat the commonwealthof Virginia
couldsteriliseCarrieBuck,a seventeen-year-oldgirl committedto a colonyfor epileptics
andthe feeblemindedin Lynchburg,whereshe livedwithher motherEmmaandher
daughterVivian.Aftera cursoryexamination,Vivian,whowas sevenmonthsold (!), was
declaredan imbecileand Carriewasorderedto be sterilised.... Viviandiedyoung,but
Carriesurvivedintoold age,a respectablewomanof moderateintelligencewhodid
crosswordpuzzlesin her sparetime.Her sisterDoris,alsosterilised,triedfor manyyears
to havebabiesbeforerealisingwhathad beendoneto her withouther consent.”^16 Bran-
deisdid not offerhis ownopinionfor the case.Nonetheless,he did cite Holmes’s words
fromBuckv. Bellto buttresshis ownopinionin a separatecasea yearafterward.^17 That
latercase,Olmsteadv. UnitedStateswas,ironicallyenough,one in whichBrandeiscame
downon the laissez-faireistside.InOlmstead, the majorityruledthatfederalagentswere
allowedto performwiretappingon telephoneconversationsin the absenceof a warrant.
Here,Brandeiscorrectlyremarkedthatthis violatedthe FourthAmendment.Withstir-
ringeloquence,Brandeiswrotefor this case,“The makersof our Constitutionundertook
to secureconditionsfavorableto the pursuitof happiness.Theyrecognizedthe signifi-
canceof man[:... ] intellect,” meaningthe rightof manto act peaceablyuponhis own
judgment.The Foundersthereforeunderstoodthe needto protect,“againstthe Govern-
ment,the rightto be let alone—the mostcomprehensiveof rights,andthe rightmost
valued by civilizedmen. To protectthat right,everyunjustifiable intrusion by the
Governmentuponthe privacyof the individual,whateverthe meansemployed,mustbe
deemeda violationof the FourthAmendment.”
The truthand eloquenceof thosewordscompoundBrandeis’s hypocrisy.Whydid he
not respectCarrieBuck’s “mostcomprehensiveof rights”—the “rightmostvaluedby
civilizedmen”? Thatwouldbe Carrie’s rightto “privacy” as an “individual.” Whydid
Brandeisnot obeythe FourthAmendmentand respectthe girl’s “rightto be let alone”? As
I said,of course,BrandeiscitedBuckv. Bell’s majoritydecisionin this verysamedissent.
He citedhis ownparticipationin thatdecisionto concedethathe andhis fellowjustices
havea rightfullicenseto impose“regulationswhich,‘a centuryago,or evenhalf a centu-
ry ago,probablywouldhavebeenrejectedas arbitraryand oppressive.’” To affordhim-
self additionalwiggleroom,Brandeisassertedthat“clauses” writtenwith“individual
protectionagainstspecificabusesof power” in mindstill “musthavea... capacityof
adaptationto a changingworld.”^18 To translate,Brandeisandthe otherjusticesmay
capriciouslyre-interpretthe Bill of Rightsat theirownconvenience.Let me rephrasewhat
Brandeisutteredaboutcorporations.Thereis no suchthingto my mindas a judgewho
can be consideredinnocentafterhavingvictimizeda teenagegirl in the mannerthat
JusticeBrandeisdid.
In defianceof the truth,Brandeis’s reputationas a saintliveson.The AmericanHeritage
Dictionaryhas an entrydefininghimas an “Americanjuristwhoservedas an associate
justiceof the U.S.SupremeCourt(1916–1939).His oppositionto monopoliesanddefenseof
individualhumanrightsformedthe basisof manyof his highcourtdecisions”^19 (emphasis
added).Somethingtellsme thatDorisBuckmightbeg to differwiththe claimthatBran-
deiswas a consistentdefenderof individualhumanrights.