[right-wing agnostic]

I detest how libertarians try to justify their support for U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as: Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Plyler v. Doe, and a few other decisions. Too often, libertarians are to willing to use the judiciary much the same way liberals do. And they are far too willing justify judicial superiority over the legislative and executive branches. (e.g., through use of the Ninth Amendment) These decisions have ABSOLUTELY NO constitutional basis. With regard to Plyler v. Doe, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld illegal aliens have no constitutional rights--even if education was a constitutional right--which it's not! (The U.S. Constitution was designed to only to apply to U.S. citizens.) With regard to Brown v. Board of Education, I am of the persuasion as William Rehnquist was while serving of a clerk to Justice Robert Jackson when he wrote a memo entitled "A Random Thought On The Segregation Cases," in which he said that the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong in overturning Plessy v. Ferguson. The 39th Congress, the same Congress that ratified the Fourteen Amendment, provided for segregated schools in Washington D.C. So that Congress didn't believe that segregated schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So Congress was clearly interested in political equality, but not social equality, for blacks, in general, and ex-slaves, in particular. While de jure segregation is certainly reprehensible, the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong in its justification in Brown v. Board of Education (1954)./rwa

[BlackAdderess]

I’m reminded of the saying that hard cases make bad law.

[BlackAdderess]

To tell you the truth though, the problem I have with libertarians wanting to litigate absolutely every darned thing is not that it will result in things like desegregation but rather the opposite. The only people who win if you have pay lawyers endless fees to keep other people from encroaching on your rights are the lawyers (while you still have money to pay them) and the encroachers (when you run out of cash to pay the lawyers). Having the country tied up in legalese and convoluted contract law stifles both innovation and a smoothly functioning society as people become afraid to act as free people should.

[Old Sarge]

Every conversation I have ever had with any LIEbertarian always comes down to one of seven things - or all seven:

1. Unrestrained unlimited drug use
2. Unrestrained unlimited access to sex
3. Unrestrained unlimited access to abortion
4. Moral relativism.
5. The individual is totally sovereign in all aspects
6. Undefined “marriage”
7. A hatred of religion

It may be summed up as the Law of the Jungle is their only guiding principle. They wish to live like animals, but expect that such
behavior will create a “just and equal society” - they are basically social utopians (aka Leftists).

[GraceG]

If we can’t trust Legislators, why can we trust anyone in a black robe EITHER.....?

Especially when the legislators are the ones who act as the gatekeepers over the men and women in black robes....

[Sam Gamgee]

I think we hoped that the Judicial branch would ultimately protect us, but instead it seems to be swayed more by political correctness and the mood of the masses than by the Constitution, at least at the Federal Court level.

Some of the founders insisted no system would protect our rights if our nation didn't continue to hold onto a moral foundation for that constitution. I fear they are right.

[Publius]

A good article on Original Intent and the proper role of the federal courts.

[PapaNew]

I’m a small “l” libertarian (not party “Libertarian”) who believes in the rule of law - the Constitution - and despises unconstitutional court rulings like Roe v. Wade.

It’s kind of hard to pigeonhole everybody. A lot of people who don’t think for themselves tend follow the “party line”, but not everyone mindlessly follows the crowd.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Of-interest ping.

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.