<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Book Review: A Giant of American Law (Reviewing Urofsky&#8217;s Louis D. Brandeis)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/05/book-review-a-giant-of-american-law-reviewing-urofskys-louis-d-brandeis.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/05/book-review-a-giant-of-american-law-reviewing-urofskys-louis-d-brandeis.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:16:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Bernstein</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/05/book-review-a-giant-of-american-law-reviewing-urofskys-louis-d-brandeis.html/comment-page-1#comment-70479</link>
		<dc:creator>David Bernstein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 04:38:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=28509#comment-70479</guid>
		<description>&quot;whose advocacy clearly influenced the Court’s resolution of the legitimacy of the Oregon statute.&quot;

Almost certainly false. The Court upheld labor laws if common sense OR statistics showed that the laws promoted public health or the health of workers.  The Court was clearly convinced that common sense held that women needed special protection.  Brandeis&#039;s brief, though influential in the longer term, was superfluous in Muller,and I&#039;m quite sure the case would have been 9-0 even without it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;whose advocacy clearly influenced the Court’s resolution of the legitimacy of the Oregon statute.&#8221;</p>
<p>Almost certainly false. The Court upheld labor laws if common sense OR statistics showed that the laws promoted public health or the health of workers.  The Court was clearly convinced that common sense held that women needed special protection.  Brandeis&#8217;s brief, though influential in the longer term, was superfluous in Muller,and I&#8217;m quite sure the case would have been 9-0 even without it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/05/book-review-a-giant-of-american-law-reviewing-urofskys-louis-d-brandeis.html/comment-page-1#comment-70475</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 04:23:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=28509#comment-70475</guid>
		<description>Yeah, being politically correct is pretty much essential in this day and age, but it is also extremely boring.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, being politically correct is pretty much essential in this day and age, but it is also extremely boring.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

