i doubt anyone in the audience will guess what this is but it's the private library of oliver wendell holmes junior. he was a law professor at harvard and became a supreme court justice. this is his private library in washington d.c. i liketh m this picture for a lot of reasons. i love the idea of sitting in the chaire in the middle of this room. no doubt he was inspired and you could imagine him reading a book i think a lot about what kind of a learning environment are we creating for kids like this particular environment here. what would it be like for these kids to have a place where there would be inspired the same way mr. justice wood in this particular moment. i'm imagining that it won't look exactly the same. maybe they too would be inspired by this kind of a space. space. when i was a library director and thinking about the kids at andover today, it's clear to me that when kids go to a library they don't do a whole lot of this. at harvard law school library in the library are high school, the libraries are very full. they're packed with kids elbow to elbow, doing their work and homew

but thirdly -- >> you've heard of oliver win wendell holmes haven't you? >> i went to harvard law school, yes. >> you agree with the truth, don't you? >> yes. >> when you keep changing your story the way your office has, you lose your credibility and people stop believing that you're telling the truth. >> congressman -- >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. wahlberg, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thanks to the panelists for the work you've done. it's been intimidating, it's been held up, frustrated all across the many, many months we've been dealing with it. i would also start with a quote from a famous chief justice of the supreme court, as well as one of the most famous trial lawyers and former members of congress, daniel webster and justice marshall, who both said, the power to tax is the power to destroy. i'm not sure they were talking about degaussing, but they were certainly talking about the power of a taxing entity to impact the lives of people. that's something we've had here. i also want

many of the decisions were announced by liberal and conservative justices from oliver wendell holmes and louis brandeis to antonin scalia. but now there are a distinguished scholar who argue the court was right to strike down the law and we need a new judicial engagement to protect economic liberties against threats to it. >> they were decrying the judicial activism. but we think that there is clearly a role. and the framework that we discussed earlier and the court needs to be on the line of defense where the legislature overstepped its bounds. in response to our concern is that when coercion is used in the arena that the government coerces economic agents in order to generate a specific outcome. it's our idea of liberty. >> aei have some defenders of judicial restraint and others who believe in is more engaged vision. what is your sense of how the conservative movement is negotiating at how vigorous should the court intervened to protect economic liberty today? >> something that's important that was brought up as the is the concept of the liberty from 200 years ago differ and what

come you can mentally let one of the chief justice rhetoric including his fulsome alliance on oliver wendell holmes it was a true critic of loughner but homes is also the author of the notorious sterilization decision for justice homes not only upheld a scurrilous denial of liberty but then added insult to injury three generations. one of the most infamous sentences in a judicial opinion almost matched justice scalia's dissent, particularly for no 22 where he wants to hang his head in a bag and where he ridicules the majority opinion. original meaning jurisprudence on obergefell today. i will conclude with what is the future for the algae bt rights movement. i think we will see another rapidly from course to legislatures and operative officials to administrators. re: seem not their focus has to be antidiscrimination laws health care name and a structuring mechanism. one not so good mining for the decision is moving forward there will be overwhelming pressure for antidiscrimination laws to include conscience alliances, broderick today and would have been felt appropriate three years ago. thank you.

and oliver wendell holmes, a famous mostly--mostly -- >> we disagree as to whether holmes was a great justice or not. very famous justice at any rate. >> writes this disgusting opinion and there is -- complete details to apply the equal protection of the law. >> yes. he was saying this is the last refuge of constitutional scholars. everyone make these arguments based on equal protection, gave at the back of his hand. holmes was not very good at first amendment freedom of speech. many cases from that era in which the supreme court upheld this impression of anti-war speech, the origins of holmes's famous clear and present danger tests, you might have heard that and the idea of not shouting fire in a crowded theater, and he used these phrases he was a wonderfully gifted writer but he used these onerous phrases to reach results that were actually contrary to the constitution's protections of free speech. i tend to think he is very much overrated but that is easy to say from the vantage point of 100 years later. >> at various points in the book you talk about the recurring question of nati

obergfeld, you could simply lift a lot of the chief justice's rhetoric including his reliance on oliver wendell holmes who was the true critic of whack anywhere. but he was also the author of the notorious sterlization decision where he not only upheld a denial of liberty but then added insult to injury three i am we sills to none. one of the most famouses opinions almost match particularly footnote 22 where he wants to hang his head in a bag and he ridicules the majority opinion as engaged in mystical aperition. ism of a fortune cookie. i will conclude with what's the future for the lgbt rights movement? i think we're going to see the lgbt rights movement move from courts to legislator legislatures and operatives officials from judges to administers. we've already seen that to a significant effect. the focus is not to be anti-discrimination laws, educational programs, health care needs, and a structuring mechanism not just marriage for family choices. now, one not so good lining for the decision is that moving forward there will be overwhelming pressure for good and bad reasons ant discrimination law

if you substitute brown for reliance on oliver wendell holmes who was, it's true of critic of wapner. but holmes was don't forget the author of buck versus bell the sterilization decision where justice holmes not only upheld a denial of liberty, but then added insult to injury three generations of imbeciles is enough. right? one of the most infamous sentences in a judicial opinion almost matched in justice scalia's dissent, particularly footnote 22 where he wants to hang his head in a bag and ridiculed opinion. original meaning jurisprudence did badly on that day. what's the future on the lgbt rights movement? i can't think we'll see the movement move rapidly from courts to legislatures and operative officials from judges to administrators. we've already seen that to a significant effect. the focus has got to be anti-discrimination laws educational programs healthcare needs and a structuring mechanism, not just marriage but family choice. one not so good lining for the decision, is that moving forward, there will be overwhelming pressure for good and bad reasons, on anti- anti-discrim