Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
I wish I could share your confidence. I expect them to make a show of holding firm, then confirm anyway after being cast by the media as being too mean.
As if the “establishment” wasn’t hated enough. Even the most moderate of Republicans has to know what allowing another liberal on the bench means for the country they live in. Even moderate democrats have to know. If they allow the vote, nothing says the nominee is going to get 50.
Like.
Does anyone know how Martin-Quinn scoring works? I ask because there are some questions that may skew in different directions depending on what is considered the conservative position. For example, on the Apple encryption question. Law enforcement and liberty questions are implicated in a way that it’s possible for people labelled “conservatives” to be on both sides of the question. I suspect the drift is likely correct, but I’d like to know more before I rely on it.
Imagine if we replaced Scalia and Ginsburg with Cruz and Yoo…
It would be funny to have Yoo order fast food into the Supreme Court.
More libertarian propaganda. You define originalism as libertarianism, and then find it ironic that conservatism supports originalism.
As I have said here for years, this is the libertarian attempt to co-opt conservatism. The good parts of libertarianism are conservative. The bad parts are progressive. Libertarianism is conservatism’s unguarded southern border.
There is much in this post that is good and interesting, and I’m grateful for it. But the replacement of conservative with libertarian is if nothing else, an assault upon the language.
Conservatives are fools to be Menshvik’d like this.
You’ve been here for years?
Not all in one stretch. Would it be inappropriate of me to cackle maniacally and say “this is not the only form I have taken here”?
At the same time, I despise deceptive “alts”. I do not have another concurrent account, and have been pretty plain in the past about my former account (which I tried to re-activate, but no response from the Ricochet help mail address). So this is my new account.
How do you like it?
I had the same question. For instance, Scalia’s 4th amendment jurisprudence was strongly pro-defendant (properly so, in my view). In that he was sometimes joined by Thomas but justices like Rehnquist and Alito did not do so. Moreover, Scalia was often joined by the liberal justices, except Breyer and Stevens, in those opinions. How would those cases be scored?
Libertarianism is about freedom from government coercion. What’s “bad” about that?
I agree with the overall premise here with one caveat: the conservative wing of the court hasn’t been great on 4th amendment jurisprudence. Take for example Cruz and his statements on Apple unlocking secure phones – no libertarian should support that.
I agree with your conclusion regarding the consequential nature of the election but have an observation on this part of your post:
Actually, if Obama gets his appointment and the next administration combines a Democratic president with a Democratic senate the game may really be over. One problem with all of the current conservative justices, with the exception of Thomas, is they believe in judicial restraint and following precedent. As a practical matter, that means every time the liberals win in the Court they establish yet another liberty-draining precedent, which the conservative justices follow, while trying to stop further erosion – but they never reverse direction. It is a one-way rachet, with only the timing in question. It’s a disastrous approach and a defect in conservative legal thinking (and I’m a conservative, not a libertarian).
You aren’t a textualist I see.
Mike said: “the ‘originalist’ opinion nearly always duplicates the libertarian position.” That does not mean “defining originalism as libertarianism.”
Scalia would smack you down so hard for that.
Words mean things.
Communism is about freedom from exploitation. Huzzah!
It’s a graph showing evidence of Lord Acton’s statement: “Power corrupts.”
I think your basic point is correct regardless of the graph, but having now looked into the background of the Martin-Quinn scores I think their methodology is problemmatic. There are a number of criticisms, most along the following lines:
I’m driving to Chicago (for the meetup) shortly so it’ll be several hours until I can comment again.
Jamie, it’s true the conservative wing of the court aren’t perfect from a libertarian perspective, but they get so many things right that it’s not worth quibbling.
Mark, great point about the flaw in Conservative jurisprudence and one of the main reasons I picked Thomas as exemplar.
I agree in principle that Conservative justices aid Libertarin causes, but I dispute that an originalist reading of the constitution duplicates a Libertarian position. It is perfectly within the originalist reading to have socialized medicine if it should so pass the Congress. It is within originalist reading to prohibit harmful drugs or substances. it is within the constitution to allow Bernie Sanders to turn this country into a socialist state if he should so get elected and Congress went along with it. The constitution allows for legislation that prohibts freedoms, as long as they don’t prohibit the freedoms of the Bill of Rights.
I agree with the conclusion, but don’t agree with many points of your argument.
I think the Conservative wing of the court does more to sustain Progressivism than Libertarianism: stare decisis is the legal equivalent of Charlie Brown attempting to kick the football. Morever, if one compares the number of laws Congress passes versus the number the Court overturns, they’re not even a speedbump.
But you’re certainly right that absent the Conservative wing things would be slightly worse.
This is not correct. We have a 9th and 10th Amendment to avoid exactly this outcome.
The Constitution is a specific list of powers granted, not a carte blanche to do whatever’s not prohibited. This is why Prohibition of alcohol required an amendment.
Of course the Progressives abandoned this limitation.
Absolutely – read your Federalist Papers.
I concur in part and dissent in part from your opinion :)
I concur that the Framers of the Constitution were not libertarians, nor is the Constitution itself a libertarian document. Further, there are legislative actions that Congress could constitutionally take that would (and have) horrified any libertarian, let alone conservatives.
I dissent regarding the notion that Congress can prohibit freedoms as long as they don’t violate the Bill of Rights. In addition to the Bill of Rights, the constitution itself is a limiting document regarding what the federal government may do. Anything it is not explicitly permitted, it is forbidden to do. The Progressive project has been to narrow the Bill of Rights and the Constitutional protections by creating something they call “economic rights“, reading them out of the constitution and then hollowing out the rest of the Constitution (see the commerce clause, federalism and separation of powers) so that the actual words become meaningless.
An originalist reading of the constitution holds that the Federal government is only granted enumerated powers: i.e., unless the people and the states explicitly granted the federal government a power, they retain it.
None of the powers listed above are granted in the constitution. Even during the Progressive era, it was understood that alcohol could not be banned without amending the Constitution to give it that power.
[Update: Tuck beat me to it.]
[Second update: so did Mark.]
Yeah, sorry. You can only state this if you don’t know the history, the meaning of the term “libertarian”, or if you’re being intentionally misleading. I’ll assume it’s one of the first two, as even Wilson explicitly stated his goal in ignoring the Constitution was to enable statism. I can help you with the first two:
“Is the Constitution Libertarian?” (PDF)
Pick up your game, Tom. ;)
Yeah sorry, you can only state this if you don’t know the history, if you can’t distinguish opinion from fact, or if you’re being intentionally misleading. I assume it’s one of the first two.
I’ve read Barnett’s books and have great respect for him; just last month I went to Yale Law School to see him give a lecture on his new book. Think he’s made great contributions to legal scholarship but also that his ideological preoccupations have led him to some extremes that just aren’t supportable and, for that reason, have been subject to justified extensive criticism.
Which makes it so frustrating when libertarians decide to reelect an authoritarian Democrat because the Republican isn’t perfect enough for them.
I keep seeing more and more articles about how Libertarians should support Bernie Sanders. Why? Because Socialism is such a libertarian philosophy?
Wait… what? Stipulating that many self-described libertarians vote Republican (including just about all of them on Ricochet), 2012 was the year that Gary Johnson picked up more votes for the LP than ever. Now, that was a dumb decision on their part if you ask me, but it’s not the same as voting for Obama.
Links plz.
More and more? I’ve seen one and it was roundly decried by almost every Libertarian.