In Holmes' defense, the job of a Supreme Court justice is to establish common law precedent for the future, not to get the right decision for the case at hand.

So, for instance, if an illegal search turns up clear evidence that a company is evading taxes, justice for the case at hand says that the company should be punished. But the principle of law says that precedent must be set that the police can't violate the 4th amendment.

This is not a hypothetical example. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverthorne_Lumber_Co._v._Uni....