I know little of history, but want to know about any personal beliefs of the Justices, and whether personal biases affected their decisions. In Buck v. Bell (1927), the Court upheld a statute instituting compulsory sterilization of the unfit "for the protection and health of the state." Did any Justice believe in eugenics? I recognise that bad law is still law, but am dismayed to read 7 justices formed the majority. Since J Butler dissented, why didn't more do so? In particular, Justice Holmes's vilifications staggered me. I can understand the desire to prevent hereditary illness and suffering, but I don't know if J. Holmes circumscribed his vituperation? He could have softened his tone, at least, or clarified his intent?
Update n 2015 Feb 23: I just read http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/010315/alschuler-holmes.shtml
want to know about any personal beliefs of the Justices
"The ruling was written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes"
"Holmes concluded his argument by declaring that "Three generations of imbeciles are enough"."
Sounds like a ringing endorsement for eugenics to me, from America's foremost jurist.
Buck v. Bell needs to viewed in context: The Lochner Era. Lochner was a case in which the Court struck down a NY law regulating the amount of time that bakers could work in a day (I recall it was 12 hours). The received wisdom of the Lochner Era is that the Court struck down progressive laws that regulated the economy in order to preserve a constitutional right of freedom to contract.
Federal Courts were perceived by progressives at the time at being very conservative and striking down State laws championed by Progressives. So while you look at Buck v. Bell as a case about eugenics, progressives looked at the case like another Lochner. So the content of Buck v. Bell doesn't really matter as much as its historical context.
Sources:
Herbert & Weschler's Federal Courts, 6th edition. Noah Feldman, Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices.