[seanc623]

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 a couple of years ago that the Boy Scouts of America can't be forced to make homosexuals scout leaders. The 4 conservatives all were in the majority side. The four liberals were in the minority. The Boy Scouts won because the swing vote, O'Connor voted with them. So I take it you think that they should have been compelled to make homosexuals Scout Leaders, since this wasn't an economic issue. If dingbats like you had their way it would have gone the other way, since the conservatives who were all appointed by Republican Presidents wouldn't have been there.

I guess I haven't been clear enough about Libertarianism or maybe you're just too used to the Republicans making you choose between economic OR personal freedom. Let me spell it out as clearly as I can: The Libertarian Party is the ONLY party that defends all of your freedom, all of the time. That means economic AND personal freedom. No excuses, no compromises. So our Supreme Court judges will allow the Scouts (and everyone else) to decide who gets to be leaders in their organization. Unlike the Republicans, Democrats and every other party, we don't allow ANYONE to use government power against you or your organization.

[lasereye]

I guess I haven't been clear enough about Libertarianism or maybe you're just too used to the Republicans making you choose between economic OR personal freedom.

You said conservative justices are no good on personal freedom. Remember that? That's what the Supreme Court case was about.

Your point that libertarians are for freedom is beside the point. You claim that it doesn't matter what judges we have if they're Democrat or Republican appointees. If all the justices were Democratic appointees, the BSA would have essentially been taken over by the federal government by now.

Give me a specific decision in the war on drugs that was unconstitutional.