I’m trying to study for my Social Science course and I need some help to understand this question.
1) The Buck v. Bell decision, while never expressly overruled, has been cast into “anti-canonical” status because the holding and the law that was challenged in the case was based on “science” that we now see as complete quackery with devastating results. The infamous “Brandeis Briefs” were also filled with questionable science and statistics. They were used heavily in “social engineering cases” during the progressive era, such as in Oregon v. Muller. From our vantage point in history, we look back and laugh at the applicable “science” of that era.
In your opinion, are there scientific (including social science) methods, theories, studies, data, areas that we rely on to inform our laws and that court decisions currently rely on, that will be seen as “quackery” by law students in 100 years? If so, identify one
2) Oregon v. Muller was a watershed case for labor rights it upheld a maximum work day of ten hours for women. While the case achieved a long-fought-for result for labor rights, it relied on laughable science proffered in a “Brandeis Brief” (women’s bodies are made up of more water than men’s are, for example) and harmful stereotypes about women.
In your opinion, was it a mistake or good legal strategy to sacrifice one goal (reflecting the equality of women in our laws) in order to gain another
0 comments