Dissents and Traditions in the Context of Prohibition

The court in question experiences a high rate of dissents, with only about 73% of its decisions being unanimous in the context of prohibition. The dissenting views include conservative justices advocating for ameliorating rigorous prohibition, while Holmes, a positivist, argues that extreme measures are warranted as per the people's desires. Additionally, Taft believes that the revolt of elites against prohibition undermines the rule of law, necessitating the enforcement of prohibition with augmented severity. The decisions by Taft, Vannevener, and Samford in the context of prohibition bear resemblance to Holmes' positivism. The New Deal is seen as a departure from the traditions of American federalism due to its centralized approach to prohibition, contrary to the decentralized decision-making about liquor and consumption regulations at the state level. These conservative justices are characterized as nationalists and positivists in the context of prohibition.