Yet The Warren court is famous for being liberal and “libertarian”, and is described as such.
Could you provide some cases which would support your theory? Saying “described as such” doesn’t make your case. Who describes it as such? What basis do they have in saying so?
I’ll cite something. Roe v. Wade and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, transferred the question of whether or not abortion was murder or not from the states to decide to the federal government, supercedeing the authority of the states in favor of a massive centralized power.
It is likely that as a conservative, you would, for example, not see a massive central government that uses its power to do what, in your mind, would be good as an intrusion. Therefore, if the massive centralized government used its power in matters of authority where it constitutionally doesn’t belong, for example, regulating marriage or abortion, you wouldn’t see it as a problem. However, when the opposite happens, you would see it as intrusion. Likewise, a court which makes abortion legal no matter how it does this is probably seen by you as libertarian, when it is in fact the complete opposite of libertarianism.
The fact of the matter is that there are four federal crimes mentioned in the constitution. Piracy, treason, counterfiting, and slaveholding. Everything else should be left to the states to handle under the 10th amendment, including murder. If there is a similar federal crime, it is simply overlap and redundant. Abortion should be a state crime. The remedy for the big government anti-libertarian Roe v. Wade / Doe v. Bolton would be for state governments to nullify the decision as unconstitutional and to implement state laws which consider abortion as murder.
I’ll cite you an example of the remedy. In the 1850s, Wisconsin was a free state where slaveholding was illegal, even though the federal law (which supercedes state law, right?) made slaveholding legal. Consequently the Underground Railroad brought many escaping slaves to the state of Wisconsin. At the time, there was a federal law known as the Fugitive Slave Act. The act stated that escaped slaves would be rounded up by the state where they escaped to and sent back to their owners. The act subsidized slaveholding, because in theory, the cost of rounding up escaped slaves and buying new ones would eventually cost more than the cost of employing workers, which would end the instution of slavery peacefully and without a War Between the States or hundreds of thousands dead. Wisconsin decided to have nothing to do with the Fugitive Slave Act, nullifying it and declaring that any federal authorities who apprehended escaped slaves in their state would be charged with kidnapping. Illinois, home of Lincoln, on the other hand, not only complied with the Act but decided that any free blacks who entered Illinois would be apprehended, taken to Kentucky, and sold into slavery.
That was a long way to get to it but the point is that any decision that centralizes authority cannot be described as libertarian. The most famous decision of the Warren court is anti-libertarian. I guess I’m confused by your post. Could you elaborate?
“and ‘libertarian’, and is described as such”
“described as such”? By whom?
The essence of Libertarianism is not a philosophy that argues AGAINST the values of social Conservatives; it is, instead, a philosophy that argues in favor of natural limitations of law and promotion of Liberty wherein one can be a social conservative in their personal affairs, or a social liberal in their personal affairs, as their conscience dictates. The problem for both social conservatives and modern day Liberals is they both want to bring the state into making “legal” and “illegal” many things the Libertarian would leave for the individual to decide; and when they can, both Liberals and social conservatives want to use the institutions of the state to take on the role of advocating for their social positions and advocating against the social positions of others - where again, the Libertarian wants to remove the state from having such power in the first place.
In the essence of Conservatism, Libertarians are more Conservative than many social conservatives, as many social conservatives don’t really want the state diminished, they only want it diminished as regards oppostion to their social values.