Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Posted on 06/08/2010 5:07:01 PM PDT by grand wazoo
Interesting. Of course it is not true that we have a conservative Supreme Court. That cannot be said so long as Anthony Kennedy holds sway.
My problem with libertarians is their support of judicial activism on issues like abortion and gay marriage. If it came down to a choice between a court that is restrained, even in the face of violations against genuine rights (like gun possession and free speech) versus a court that is ‘activist’ (sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad), then I’d choose a restrained court. Of couse, we’ll have neither for long, as we are a Scalia or Kennedy retirement away from a full-blown leftwing activist Sup Court.
We lost our last chance at decisively righting the court with the GOP imposion of 2006-08 and the the election of Obama.
Most libertarians would argue that the federal government has no real business defining what marriage is in the first place, either for tax collection purposes, census or any other reason. It’s up to the various faiths to define and individual states to regulate what institutions of marriage or union they recognize or reject.
And many libertarians also believe that life is the first right: http://l4l.org/ A movement I hope to see grow.
No. They were based on the presumption of local control.
THAT is where there's a big gap--something that I think is more at the core than some supposed judicial activism of libertarian philosophy. The Constitution laid out what the feds were allowed, not restrictions on states.
I used past tense in my first sentence because the original presumptions have been twisted by the Fourteenth Amendment and how it has been twisted.
The sad thing is, the Second Amendment, for example, is left out when the libs interpret the Fourteenth. Prior to the Fourteenth, the residents of a state could vote to restrict firearms in their state...now they shouldn't.
IANAL, though.
Too many so-called “conservatives” are all too happy with Big Brother so long as it promotes their agenda.
They don’t understand the concept of liberty anymore than the Left.
“Too many so-called “conservatives” are all too happy with Big Brother so long as it promotes their agenda.
They don’t understand the concept of liberty anymore than the Left.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Ain’t that the truth!
Since forcible drowning would already be covered , I would say none are warranted there either.
My branch of the libertarian tree also tells me abortion is on the same side of the fence as violence and state governments should answer to their citizens .
Abortion is an issue unlike almost any other in government . It is perhaps the only issue I can think of that rivals slavery and the battle for civil rights as needing separate and unique considerations .
Like slavery and civil rights , there is no gray area in my humble , yet unerringly correct opinion .
The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog. --G.K. Chesterton
Many “conservatives” are against judicial activism, until they find a case where they choose to impose THEIR will upon us, be it Constitutional or not....
Activism is activism, whether it’s from the right OR left, and should be avoided entirely.
“And many libertarians also believe that life is the first right”
I believe that. How can you claim any rights if you don’t have something so fundamental as a right to your life?
A clear distinction should be made on those that favor liberty and those that think it is at the whim of the state, regardless what moniker they assign themselves
bookmark
It's not that hard. How about a less wussily written opinion that was about 10 times more blunt and didn't go so far out of its way to enumerate all the infringements it DIDN'T prevent? Or maybe I'm just a good imaginer.
Oh, bullcrap. A ruling which overturns a precedent is not "activism" if the ruling to be overturned was itself "activist". The left doesn't get to commit all THEIR activism, overturning centuries of precedent, and suddenly discover profound respect for stare decisis, thus preventing the reversal of those decisions, far younger and far weaker than the precedents THEY reversed.
The problem with looking at marriage as strictly a religious covenant is that so much of society’s foundation is based on marriage and a traditional family structure. What about the children? And property and inheritance? I tend to hold libertarain views on most things, but I don’t think society can toss marriage and the family structure out the window without doing real harm to children and civilization itself.
I have no conflict with libertarians who really believe that the states (as long as it is the people and/or their elected legislators, not state courts)should be free to decide for their own purposes what unions they will or will not recognize. This is totally in line with how I think the Constitution should be interpreted.
The problem is that many libertarians support judicial activism and a ‘living Constitution’ when it comes to social issues like marriage. Some guy from the Cato Institute co-wrote an article yesterday in the Washington Post calling for the federal courts to impose gay marriage on the entire nation.
I understand that many libertarians are socially liberal, but if they can’t at least agree and concede that their socially liberal views are not enshrined in the Constitution and should not be imposed by the courts, then I don’t see how a conservative-libertarian alliance can work or last.
And as far as the federal goverment defining marriage is concerned, well remember that the Sup Court is part of the federal government, and if Congress has no right or business defining marriage, then the Sup Court definitely doesn’t.
A civil contract that can be broken without penalty has not , does not , and will not keep people together against their will . I would be surprised if religious weddings bonds were any tighter . Property can pass by joint tenancy or other title operations , testamentary will , trust device ,or intestate succession law . If society is depending on the government to force people to stay together or make it painful to separate , it is already over .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.