much of the employee protection legislation struck down by the federal courts in the lockner era had been on the statute book in britain since the middle of the 19th century. it got there by ordinary legislation and by political action. the justification commonly put forward for treating such matters as constitutional issues is that it protects minorities against majority tyranny. but what constitutes majority tyranny? it very much depends on how you define your majority and what you regard as tyranny. except perhaps in classic discrimination cases where the animating principal is to treat those cases alike. there are no legal standards by which these questions can be answered. the only available standards are political ones. there is also, although i perhaps hesitate to make the point here, a wider issue, namely whether it is wise to make law in this way. i recognize that partisan divisions and institutional blockages in congress have made controversial legislative change difficult to achieve in the united states. i recognize that that encourages those who look for a judicial revolu