Question for legal eagles only. Does anyone out there think Oliver W. Holmes would have advocated for judicial restraint if the progressives in Congress and the states weren’t making such “progress.” In other words, would he have favored a bit more judicial activism if he didn’t think the activists were getting things done. I know the basic and standard answer is “no, he really did believe in judicial restraint.” I know about his nihilist streak and all that (and that he was, essentially, a jerk). But I’m wondering if this is more of an open question than I’ve read/heard. Please send interesting and illuminating responses to [email protected]