No, there is no contradiction. There are only a complicated series of checks and balances by which we seek to disburse power and prevent tyranny. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution's meaning
on a practical, daily-basis only. Because decisions have to be made so that action can be taken
in real time. But they are not tyrants. Their selection is a matter of arbitration between the legislative and executives branches. They do not control the army or the purse. If they're too far out of step with the country they can precipitate a crises or be removed. They're always conscious of that.
I won't discuss Holmes' philosophy with you because I don't feel competent to do so. But I am in agreement with his general idea that each generation decides what is moral and legal. That absolutes are difficult if not impossible to capture.
"But I am in agreement with his general idea that each generation decides what is moral and legal. That absolutes are difficult if not impossible to capture." Each generation decides what is legal. What is moral is more fixed, and unchangeable. It is we who change, not the fundamental morals necessary to good society.
The problem with Holmes is that he thinks it is for the judiciary to decide what is moral or immoral and change the law by "reinterpretating" it. The laws are changeable by the legislatures, federal or state, by local communities, by the unwritten mores of the society.
I am surprised that you do not see that you contradicted yourself when it is very obvious.