My feet hurt.
Yesterday in class, Barnett went off about how Justice Holmes is his least favorite justice. It's hard to quarrel with that ranking. Holmes could turn a wonderful phrase--sadly, just never at an appropriate time. For legal standards we get vague metaphors.
But that's secondary. He's a moral relativist, or nihilist or something, which I suspect is defensible, if wrong. But Holmes isn't even a very good moral relativist. And even if he tempers it by refusing to judge morality and simply letting the majority do whatever it wants, he can't even stick with that principle, the jerk.
Note the alarming cynicism in so many dissents, and then, all the sudden you'll get him defending the 1st Amendment, or the rights of man, or some such. It's one thing to admit it's hard to draw lines--it's another to deny that such lines exist and then act as it they do (without acknowledgment of the inconsistency). Compare his majority in Schenk to his Abrams dissent.