How did Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. view laws passed by elected representatives?

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was a strong advocate for judicial restraint, believing that the creation of laws is the responsibility of legislative bodies rather than the courts. He maintained that, provided they remain within constitutional bounds, the people have the right to enact whatever laws they choose—whether good or bad—through their elected representatives.1

Holmes argued that a constitution should not be used to enforce a specific economic theory, such as laissez-faire. In his famous dissent in Lochner v. New York, he criticized the court for interfering with the democratic process, asserting that liberty should not be interpreted in a way that prevents the natural outcome of a dominant public opinion unless a statute clearly infringes upon fundamental principles. Consequently, he believed judges should generally defer to the policy decisions made by the elected branches of government.23