On January 28, 1916, Woodrow Wilson nominated Louis D. Brandeis to the Supreme Court, thus sparking an exceedingly nasty confirmation fight. Wilson had to know it was coming — the year before he had supported Brandeis for membership in the Cosmos Club, over opposition complaining of Brandeis “that he is a reformer for revenue only; that he is a Jew; and that he would be a disturbing element in any club of gentlemen.”
Brandeis qualified as a reformer, no doubt: he had come to national attention by putting social-scientific data — largely assembled by his sister-in-law and employer in the case, Josephine Goldmark — before the court in Muller v. Oregon. The tactic gave the Court a way to get around the constipated reading of the Fourteenth Amendment it had been using since it started gutting Reconstruction — if the facts now known differed from the assumptions underlying previous rulings, one could overturn them. It is the tactic that underlies Brown v. Board, among other cases.
Moreover Brandeis had written Other People’s Money, which cast doubt on the social utility of very rich people, among other sins, and advised Wilson during the 1912 campaign.
That he was a Jew went without saying,1 and Brandeis himself thought that rather lay behind opposition to him. Certainly some of the complaints against him — that, as the New York Times said, he was “a contender” and “a striver”; that in the words of the Boston Globe he was “given to extravagance in utterance” and was “a ‘self-advertiser’” — sound an awful lot like the kind of complaints that supposedly nice people often make about Jews. Take those two together — reformer plus Jew — and you get “disturbing element in any club of gentlemen.”
As a friend warned Brandeis, “By your zeal for the common good you have made many enemies…. You will be accused of everything, from grand larceny to a non-judicial temperament. Fake telegrams will be sent to Washington in the name of persons who never sent them or signed them. Forged signatures will be entered on petitions of protest. I hope you have a friend on the sub-committee…”
Spurious charges were indeed brought; they amounted to nothing. Fifty-five Bostonians, including the president of Harvard, A. Lawrence Lowell, signed a petition accusing Brandeis of lacking the “judicial temperament.” It was the kind of campaign that could get people muttering that if those guys didn’t like Brandeis, maybe he was no good.
![]() |
One of Brandeis’s allies drew up a chart pointing out that the fifty-five anti-Brandeisians all belonged to the same clubs, worked in the same State Street banks, and lived in the same neighborhoods. As Walter Lippmann wrote, “All the smoke of ill-repute which had been gathered around Mr. Brandeis originated in the group psychology of these gentlemen and because they are men of influence it seemed ominous. But it is smoke without any fire except that of personal or group antagonism.”
To Harvard’s credit, Charles Eliot, its great former president, wrote that to reject Brandeis would be “a grave misfortune for the whole legal profession, the Court, all American business, and the country.” And another Bostonian, the lawyer — and Republican, and Brandeis-supporter — Arthur Hill, wrote that Brandeis was indeed unpopular among Boston lawyers: but that “It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a radical to be generally popular with Boston lawyers, or escape severe adverse criticisms of his motives and conduct.”
Brandeis was approved on a party-line vote and went on to a distinguished career on the bench, helping to establish rights to privacy and free speech.
Today’s discussion of VRWC’s really needs more charts and graphs.
1But not the first ever nominated, or at least offered nomination; that was apparently Judah Benjamin, whom Millard Fillmore wanted to put on the Court. He refused, taking a seat in the Senate instead, and went on to join Jefferson Davis’s cabinet. Ruth Bader Ginsburg seems to think it’s anti-Semitic that people called him “Judas” Benjamin, although maybe it just means he was a traitor to his country.
UPDATED to note: pretty much all factual information contained herein comes from
Mason, Alpheus Thomas. Brandeis: A Free Man’s Life. New York: Viking, 1946.
31 comments
January 28, 2008 at 11:35 am
bitchphd
Except that of course they were kind of right, weren’t they? He did turn out to be a “disturbing element.” It’s just that some of this are all, “go disturbing elements.”
January 28, 2008 at 11:39 am
eric
Well, right-ish — but they didn’t just say, “he’ll disturb us,” they said he’s unethical, and bad and wrong for the Supreme Court (because, sotto voce, he’ll disturb us).
Of course, note that even back then the NYT was quick to print the idea that conservatism is apolitical.
January 28, 2008 at 11:56 am
bitchphd
I was actually joking.
I’m still sort of giggling at the use of words like “contender” and “striver.” Shades of Clinton’s “ambition,” Edwards’s “primping” before going on air, etc. My pearls!!
January 28, 2008 at 11:57 am
Megan
Today’s discussion of VRWC’s really needs more charts and graphs.
So, so true, and so broadly applicable.
January 28, 2008 at 12:08 pm
rootlesscosmo
And lots of lawyers who never read Muller and may not even know its name still understand that when you adduce data from the social sciences in support of an appellate argument, you’re filing a “Brandeis brief.”
January 28, 2008 at 1:00 pm
eric
Dude, I hope lawyers at least know about Muller.
Actually, Muller is worth a post in itself one of these days.
January 28, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Charles
I have a pair of Brandeis Briefs. I wear them on Tuesday. Rather than disturbing, they are rather comforting.
January 28, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Ben Alpers
Charts and graphs are the swastikas of Liberal Fascism™.
January 28, 2008 at 2:20 pm
eric
I’m trying to figure out how to explain Brandeis boxer-briefs.
January 28, 2008 at 2:34 pm
rootlesscosmo
I’d venture that lawyers–not law professors or appellate specialists or current Con Law students–know about Muller in the sense that they recall some child labor case? from was it New York? as the source of the term; I’ll bet a frosty beverage nine out of ten day-in, day-out practitioners won’t remember any more than that.
January 28, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Gene O'Grady
I don’t know very much about Harvard, but it’s always seemed to me that A Lawrence Lowell was a step down from some of its previous leaders. Does anyone know the social-historic background of his appointment vis-a-vis his predecessors including the above-mentioned Eliot? I suppose I’m back to my usual obsession that such things move in fits and starts rather than in a straight line of progress.
January 28, 2008 at 7:37 pm
andrew
Today’s discussion of VRWC’s really needs more charts and graphs
I vaguely remember reading someone talking about this within the past few years. I think it was a blogger who discusses social networking stuff every now and then. Maybe Cosma Shalizi?
Could have been just about corruption, and not the VRWC.
January 28, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Indiana Joe
Media Transparency has an article on what it calls the Republican Apparat. It doesn’t have graphs, but it looks like a good place to start.
January 28, 2008 at 8:18 pm
urbino
Whomever the ally was who put Brandeis’s chart together, he or she was a genius. We should all have such allies.
And, yes, a phylogeny of the right. A capital idea. To whom is Strauss a grandfather, and to whom Mansfield a mother?
January 28, 2008 at 10:16 pm
eric
to whom Mansfield a mother
Low blow, there.
And no, Gene, sorry, I don’t know the story behind Lowell. It would be hard to measure up to Eliot, though.
January 28, 2008 at 10:22 pm
eric
Whomever the ally was
It was James Butler Studley, a name that speaks for itself.
January 29, 2008 at 1:14 am
Hemlock
“A constipated reading of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
I need some clarification here. Did Slaughterhouse dehydrate the Court?
“…the kind of complaints that supposedly nice people often make about Jews.”
I need more analytical umph here.
My assessment of Brandeis’s career: free-speech bad@$$, but that whole Zionist thing…kinda prompted me to reanalyze his his intentions on the bench…
January 29, 2008 at 1:31 am
Hemlock
You know what, though, “real” New Orleans men liked their water with some meat in it. Hence those health “standards.” Akin to Campell’s Soup v. Campell’s Chunky. Miller’s the Turneresque frontier man. He probably preferred Chunky Water, which most likely caused the constipation.
January 29, 2008 at 5:55 am
eric
I need some clarification here
Hemlock, dropping the metaphor you appear to dislike, the Court gave the Fourteenth Amendment such a reading — not only in Slaughterhouse, but also in US v. Cruikshank, the Civil Rights Cases, and others, as to render it virtually meaningless.
I need more analytical umph here
A lot of people have bigoted thoughts and intentions but don’t like to express them explicitly, so they use apparently acceptable language. Those Jews! they talk with their hands! and don’t act like gentlemen (gentile-men, get it? so subtle).
’kay? Now you can explain what you don’t like about Brandeis’s Zionism.
January 29, 2008 at 6:04 am
Cosma
Andrew: You were probably thinking of this post. My impression is that nothing really large-scale or systematic has been done in this direction since then — at least I hope not, because we’re trying to assemble and analyze at least the campaign-donation part of the network. (It’s surprisingly easy to do it wrong.)
January 29, 2008 at 6:13 am
eric
Cosma! Thanks for dropping by. I’m sorry for the hit your reputation will necessarily take from your name appearing on this blog.
January 29, 2008 at 6:14 am
eric
Also, I eagerly await your web-like illustration. Who will be the comedy-cartoon spider at the center?
January 29, 2008 at 6:21 am
eric
(Also, thanks Andrew for drawing Cosma in.)
January 29, 2008 at 9:49 am
Hemlock
I was being facetious. I know full well the extent of the *approriate metaphor* constipation. As for Zionism, I don’t necessarily have any problems with it. Just made me rethink Brandeis awhile back. Thanks for all your help, though.
January 29, 2008 at 10:03 am
Hemlock
By the way, “facetious” means amusing/humorous remark.
January 29, 2008 at 10:18 am
urbino
Low blow, there.
Yeah, probably. But it made me chuckle.
It was James Butler Studley, a name that speaks for itself.
Imagine the man-crush Mansfield would have.
January 29, 2008 at 5:28 pm
andrew
You were probably thinking of this post.
Yes, that’s the one.
January 30, 2008 at 7:04 am
Cosma
Eric: if we wrote a paper on the anti-Brandeis network, you’d have a legitimate Erdos number (since mine’s 3). Just a thought.
May 3, 2008 at 6:29 am
Modern Octopi. « The Edge of the American West
[…] board membership showing the 212 most connected of the top 400 companies by market capitalization. Louis Brandeis would be so […]
January 29, 2009 at 8:14 pm
following the leaders « by the wayside
[…] the leaders Posted on 29 January 2009 by andrew 0.2: Fifty-five Bostonians, including the president of Harvard, A. Lawrence Lowell, signed a petition […]
January 29, 2009 at 8:14 pm
following leaders « by the wayside
[…] Posted on 29 January 2009 by andrew 0.2: Fifty-five Bostonians, including the president of Harvard, A. Lawrence Lowell, signed a petition […]