JUSTICE LOUIS DAVID BRANDEIS

 JUSTICE LOUIS DAVID BRANDEIS (1856 -1941)

In recognition of Louis David Brandeis, early stage of financial struggle, prior to admission at Harvarad Law School at the age of 18 years, in the year (1875), after his graduation from Annenschule School, as Dresden City Council College from Germany. His graduation from Harvard Law School, started his journey of Practice at Boston, and having a sense of appreciation to his family background, and average economic living, took a path, which he became known of, as the people’s attorney, by representing the ‘interest’ that empowers the vulnerable before the law, on the grounds of fairness and principle. Doing so committedly, in pro bono, as in the case of, Muller vrs. State of Oregon (1908), devising a system in presenting his pleading before the Supreme Court, which, he will later be sworn-in to serve; was a 113 page document, outlining quasi-scientific data analysis, that relied on economic, sociological data, historical experience, and expert opinions, methodically developed to support the Legal propositions, which became a classic document to be called ‘Brandeis Brief’, with the same method used, in ‘discharging’, the case of Equitable Life Assurance Society of New York Vrs. New England Policy-Holder Protective Committee (1915), which defined the policy direction of Life Insurance services as at then, to be offered over-the-counter by ‘Savings Banks’[Investment Bank in modern rendition], at a rates within the means of workers, sought the Court to correct the statutes of various [S]tates prescribing maximum hours of labour and minimum wages by the Investment Bankers over the American Industry (1907 to 1914), as well persuading the Court to uphold a Law restricting the working hours of women, despite the general tendency to strike down the economic regulation of that era. And similar cases of that nature, paving his way into the Supreme Court of the United States of America, as an Associate Justice (1916 to 1939). With a record of the notable dissenting on the landmark cases at the United State Apex Court, as follows;

I. Erie Railroad co. Vs. Tompkins (1938)

A Federal Court exercising diversity jurisdiction must apply the [S]tate Law, as declared by the highest [S]tate Court. There is no Federal General Common Law.

II. Chicago Board of Trade Vs. U.S. (1918)

The true test of legality, is whether a restraint merely regulates, and perhaps thereby promotes competition,or whether it may suppress or even destroy competition. To determine that question, a Court must consider the facts peculiar to the Business, its condition before, and after the restraint was imposed, the nature of restraint, and its effect, actual or probable. The history of the restraint, the evil believed to exist, the reason for adopting the particular remedy, and the purpose or end sought to be attained, are all relevant facts.

Inconclusion, as reference to his profound quote from his 1911 year publication, ‘The Opportunity in the Law’, published by the Harvard University Press.

I quote;

“The Public is often inadequately represented or wholly unrepresented. That presents a condition of great unfairness to the public. As a result, many bills pass in our legislatures, which would not have become law, if, the public interest had been fairly represented. Those of you who feel drawn to that profession may rest assured that, you will find in it an opportunity for usefulness, probably unequaled. There is a call upon the legal profession to do a great work for this country.”

 -------------------------------------------------------------------

Photo of Justice L.D. Brandeis ©Harvard Law School, Historical & Special Collections

-------------------------------------------------------

Emmanuel Tweneboah Senzu, DBA., PhD., SJD.

Professor of Constitutional Law and Economic Criminology, fellow, University of Sierra Leone.

Fulbright Research Fellow, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, USA.