...Justice Holmes' admonition in his now-vindicated dissent in Lochner v. New York; "[The Constitution] ts made for people of fundamentally differing views,...them conflict with the Constitution of the United States."22 Hence, Blackmun 's method in this albeit brief and oblique introductory passage was to establish...

...supposed to exist which would make such an enactment .... constitutional?" z1 Law Quarterly Review, z1z. is made for people of fundamentally differing views,...conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes emhodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States." fpp. 75-76.l Finally, we have...

...relation of a citizen to the state or of laissez-faire. It is made for people of fundamentally different views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions...novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgement upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United...

...certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgement upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States....! think the word liberty in the 14th Amendment is perverted when it is held to prevent the...

...altogether, quoting with approval38 Justice Holmes's admonition in Lochner v. New York:39 the Constitution "is made for people of fundamentally differing views,...them conflict with the Constitution of the United States."40 This quote bolsters Blackmun's point that even if laws seem "natural and familiar" and appear...

...admonition in his now vindicated dissent in Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45, 76 (1905): "[The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views,...them conflict with the Constitution of the United States." I The Texas statutes that concern us here are Arts. 1191-1194 and 1196 of the State's Penal...

...quoting Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s statement in Lochner v. New York (1905): "[The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views,...to conclude our judgment upon the question whether the statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States." Justice Blackmun...

...insisting on judicial deference to legislative action. There, Holmes had argued that a constitution, "is made for people of fundamentally differing views,...shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question."35 Holmes strongly affirmed "the right of a majority to embody their opinions in law" (75)...

...fact that the moral judgments expressed by statutes like § 16-6-2 may be "natural and familiar . . . ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question...them conflict with the Constitution of the United States." Roe v Wade, 410 US 113, 117, 35 L Ed 2d 147, 93 S Ct 705 (1973), quoting Lochner v New York,...

...fact that the moral judgments expressed by statutes like 16-6-2 may be " 'natural and familiar . . . ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question...them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.' " Roe v. Wade (1973), quoting Lochner v. New York (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Like Justice...