Posted on 06/26/2017 10:16:02 AM PDT by Texas Fossil
It would be nice if we could constrain individualism as classical liberals and libertarians believe we can, but that is a utopian belief.
We can see where a focus on individualism has led to relativism and subjectivism.
Yes, communitarian/authoritarian beliefs have their own downsides, but individualism is not without its faults especially if taken to the extreme, e.g. gender fluidity, gay marriage, abortion, mass migration, crony capitalism via lobbying, etc.
I read a review / analysis of the book.
It is too Malthusian for me.
But thanks. I’m from rural country stock. We still have Christian faithful around here.
Backwater? Possibly. But I can live with it.
I could even live without TV and not actually miss it. (not my wife, smile)
Yes, indeed.
I see no way to twist the reading of the Constitution on this subject. Although the courts have labored mightily to do just that.
Yes, it’s clear.
But clearly twisted by nonsense from the Courts.
Will we have a new conservative justice by the fall, Ms. Ginsburg?
I think it will.
It is way overdue.
“Gorsuch II” Indeed. We desperately need that.
I believe and have stated that I think the time is long overdue when a complete examination of the size and nature of the Federal Courts below the Constitutionally established Supreme Court, should be done. And the scale of federal laws pertaining to things that the Federal Government is not authorized by the constitution be determined and should be returned to the state courts.
There are far too many federal laws and unresponsive federal courts. (Prime example? The entire 9th Circus)
It is also TIME to DownSize DC! Close Entire Rogue/Unconstitutional Departments, including their SWAT Teams.
Time to declare open season on the Bureaucrap. I believe that Donald Trump is the correct man to do this job.
Praying that also.
Yes. We wait.
A Classic Liberal was an anti-Statist Anti-Monarchist.
A Modern Liberal is a Marxist Statist.
180 degree phase shift since the founders lived.
Well, we should drag our feet in reconciling this case with that change in mind.
Did not make it up. I was looking at the pre-ratification draft. My goof.It should have made it in because as it reads, Congress is prohibited, but states, counties, municipalities are not.
A ruling for the bakers would pull the teeth right out of the gay marriage ruling. Anyone could claim a religious objection and not have to preside or work with a homosexual marriage. We can only hope the ruling goes that way. It will take a Kennedy retirement and Gorsuch-like replacement to have any hope of success.
May it be so.
How is forcing someone to bake a cake in a kitchen against their wishes any different than forcing someone to pick cotton in a field against their wishes?
-PJ
Legislation by Judicial fiat.
Liberal (ComDem) Judges twisting the law past all bounds. Especially the Federal Judges.
The Supreme Court should recognize that the 13th amendment means you don't destroy someone for not expanding into a market they don't wish to serve (baking the cake), you encourage others to enter a ripe market with a business that caters to an under-served population.
-PJ
The market exists (not much here), it’s fine if someone else wants to serve it. But that provider should beware, these “customers” like to sue for damages that were imagined not real.
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.