this case only has 1, 1 of the justices, oliver wendell holmes. what makes him famous? a very famous person, but oliver wendell holmes is one of the towering figures of americans jurisprudence and american letters. by the time the case comes around, he is the grand old man of the supreme court, a 19th-century guy. , he was in the civil war and he has been at the supreme court for a long time. one of the remarkable things that happens in 1919, though he has been around a long time, he is still changing his mind, coming up with new ideas. tor. schenk is so lost history, we were not able to find a photograph despite trying every resource. we will have to imagine what he looked like as the case was coming to the supreme court. it all centers around the 7.pionage act, passed in 191 tom: the espionage act was a response to real concerns, kind of the beginning of the red scare at the beginning of world war i. there was going to be a real disruption in the united states's ability to mobilize the military, so the espionage act is later augmented by the sedition act, which got ev

finally, it was the great oliver wendell holmes who had the last word on carrie's fate and who with his broad -- link hid prestige to the sterilization cause. holme did not find enjoyment but would later say that upholding the law and the sterilization had given him real pleasure. of of all the profession is it was the jew dish contrary's role the most disappoint, the supreme court had some of the leading of american law, the chief justice, william taft, who was president, and lewis brandeis, and there was holmes, former harvard law professor and the most respected justice in supreme court history. when the case reached the nine great men they got the facts wrong, the legal analysis was shoddy and the vote was not close. those who air brushed buck v bell from history would offer the simple explanation, it is an anomaly. the supreme court, they would say, was brief live caught up in eugenics because short lived one-time mistake the issues it raises are ones the nation long ago put behind it. but this argument has serious flaws. first, unlike so many of the courts' worst rulings buck v. b

we will listen to him next talking about how justice oliver wendell holmes continued to evolve his position on free speech. let's watch. [video clip] jeffrey: holmes and brandeis had their minds changed by antiwar critics and also by a professor at harvard law school, who wrote a famous article that they read over the summer of 1919. he persuaded both of them to convert their previous opinion suppressing speech into one protecting it. it is a remarkable example of intellectual open-mindedness, and willingness to adjust your view of the constitution in light of new fact and principles, and really we could say our modern first amendment was created over that remarkable summer by justice holmes and brandeis. susan: speaking of open-mindedness, our earlier caller was calling into my justice holmes's credibility. thomas: i think he would not say that he radically changed his view, it is true he read the article and it is true it was influential, but i don't think you can take it out of the context of the justice in this situation. their views evolve as they learn more. as we got further and furt

justice oliver wendell holmes. he thought that law was perfectly constitutional. even though the lochner court thought it violated the 13th amendment. ms. swain: i only have 15 minutes, and so much to discuss about this ace. let me ask you to compress 35 years of history. you said this initiated the so-called lochner era. what is that refer to? bit of as: it is a misnomer, lochner becomes the symbol of this era, and subsequent due process, the heart of this battle. this is a battle over franklin delano roosevelt's deal with the depression through government action. the flaunting of those attempts by the supreme court up until 1937. what happens in 1937, the story of roosevelt trying to pack the courts. that let's listen to franklin -- ms. swain: let's listen to franklin roosevelt in 1937 complaining about the supreme court in a fireside chat. president roosevelt: as improperly the court has said -- set itself up as a third house of congress. a super legislature as one of the justices have called it, reading into the constitution words and applications which are no

of the greatest judges in the courts history is always counted as one of the top three from oliver wendell holmes. eisenhower said earl warren was the biggest damn fool. you can't tell. once a person gets on the court they really have -- their allegiance shifts to the institution of the court , and let's take somebody like chief justice tony usually remembered only for slavery case decisions dred scott, but if you take the slavery cases out of the mix he is a strong nationalist has john marshall was before him, and jackson appoints tony to be the anti- marshall. so you can't really tell how these things will work out. wilson appointed mcreynolds essentially to get him out of the cabinet, big mistake. cabinet, big mistake. like any great constitutional conversation, i wish this could go on and on. the whole point of this wonderful book is the importance of the constitution is a conversation in the contribution that dissenting views can contribute, and this last question asks, is that you realistic in the sense that has dialogue become nastier over time, or is the court a good model? ifyou begin by

oliver wendell holmes, great supreme court judge says no one should pay a nickel more in taxes than they owe and in america, we decided the irs can challenge us, but we decide what we have. having said that, some of these people have themselves been ranting and raving against bavaria dvd that day in their family members have apparently not been exposed having done. stuart: in particular, china's leader -- >> that's a very serious situation. people are executed in china for acts of corruption, not nearly as serious as this. stuart: the prime minister of iceland may have to step down this week because of revelation in the panama papers about him keeping money and not sure account in the middle of the crash. >> correct. i've parliamentary procedure as a snap vote this afternoon of no confidence with no notice whatsoever. stuart: you see judge, a the parliamentary democracy because of a constitution. i have yet to see an american name, a prominent american name in these documents. i've not gone to 11 million of them is a mac i think of a prominent american name is ever would've known it by n