Replies

Indeed, you're just another in a long line of libertarians who would use the courts to spread your gospel.

The Gospel of libertarianism is that the state has no right whatsoever to teach anyone anything at any time. I believe when they said "libertine" you heard "libertarian" and panic set in.

The type who gives more authority to nebulous 'motivations' than to actions. But why would you care what I think?

Libertarianism entails no position whatsoever on the place of motivation in court procedure. Libertarian doesn't mean "liberal" either.

Not that I am one, particularly, but I do know that libertarian doesn't mean "whatever I don't like", libertarianism has a specific, and severely limited notion of what the state may do. Substantially more limited than that of most strict constructionists, in fact.

You have just spent considerable time arguing that locals should not control local issues and advocating federal intervention based on 'motivation'. I consider that using the courts to spread your gospel whatever the heck your gospel is.

There is nothing conservative about federal courts meedling in the affairs of local school boards. So you're not a conservative, you're not a libertarian and I guess you said you're phiosophy is not libertine.

No matter, whatever you're ideology is it includes using federal courts as a hammer to bludgeon your ideoligcal opponents based on your interpretation of their motivations.

Quite similar to the ACLU actually.