Actually, from a Libertarian perspective, I'm extremely pleased with what I've heard and learned about Bush's S. Ct. nominees (as well as his appellate nominees.) I don't expect explicitly libertarian nominees from a Republican President, and yet we've probably gotten nominees who are almost as libertarian as a LP President would have selected. (Harriet Meirs being a possible, and prominent, exception.) I doubt that Roberts or Alito will ever be quite as libertarian as Justice Thomas seems to be, but I suspect that we'll see them on the right (libertarian) side of a lot of issues that will be coming up. For instance, I think that Roberts and Alito are probably going to be votes to overturn Kelo (a city can use eminent domain condemnation to transfer private property to from one citizen to another who will pay more taxes. Note that it was the "liberal" wing of the court that went for it.) Of course, the new guys are replacing justices who voted against Kelo, so there would need to be at least another vacancy to be able to overturn it.
As for abortion, just remember that a court that overturns Roe only returns the issue to the political process in the states (where, IMHO it belongs to begin with. The "penumbra" of the constitution covers that ruling about as well as the noxious "emanations" from my posterior. It bears repeating: I have nominated Justice O'Connor for the title of "Worst Justice of the Rehnquist Court" because on any issue for which she was the swing vote, no one knew what the law would be. You couldn't even count on her not changing her mind! For better or worse, I think both Roberts and Alito will be trying very hard to simply follow the law--rather than find "emanations" from the Constitution or favorable mentions for their positions in decisions by foreign judges. Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. Douglas Friedman, replying to Frank Reichert, wrote in part: > >We presently DO HAVE REAL ISSUES. We presently have a Supreme Court that > >is up for grabs during the Shrub Regime's rule. In spite of the fact > that > >I am a Pro-Life Libertarian that believes that the Right to Life is > >probably the most important defining issue that ought to unify > >Libertarians, it is not. In spite of that, I do not necessarily support > >the current Regimes passion for changing the highest Court in a neo- > facsist > >direction that will have a profound effect of further erodding our > >liberties, the few that are still left, anyway. > > Like most libertarians, I disagree with you on the abortion issue. Your > attack on Bush's S. Ct. nominees is a bit overstated. To date, I have seen > no indication that Roberts will be any worse (or better, for that matter) > than Rehnquist, or Alito than O'Connor. I think the court does have some > fascist - authoritarian on the Nolan Chart - tendencies. Certainly the > decision in the eminent domain case was an indication. But Bush's nominees > are certainly no worse than Clinton's. Far better, from what I can tell. > > > >So, I invite those coming into this discuss to discuss this much further. > >I believe the LP has baggage, but nevertheless must weigh in during an > >election year with a National Convention, and not continue along the > lines > >of a political party that is lost in fringe issue causes that almost no > one > >care about, and probably most detest anyway. > > I agree with your assessment, but I don't think the situation can be > remedied. On national defense and foreign policy, the LP sounds like part > of > the nutcase leftist anti-American fringe. As long as it's there, it will > be > totally irrelevant, even an embarrassment to those of us who are > pro-American libertarians. > > Regards, > Doug Friedman _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
