Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Nominee for Supreme Court Justice

rated by 0 users
This post has 14 Replies | 3 Followers

Not Ranked
Male
Posts 70
Points 1,380
Lyle D. Riggs Posted: Wed, May 27 2009 1:29 AM

I have not followed this forum long enough to know if the nomination of a supreme court justice merits special attention or if it is just another subject.  I am curious about the community's reaction, if any, to the nomination process and the nominee.  Judge Sonia Sotomayor is being touted as someone with similar ideology to Justice Souter whom she is replacing on the bench.  This ought to scare all anti-statists.

I do not know much about the nominee.  Justice Souter, however, was appointed by President Bush (41).  He was considered a centrist-conservative who was in favor of limited government.  As soon as he was sworn in, he made a sharp left turn and became even more statist in his orientation.  He was consistently considered a sure vote for the "liberal-statist" block on the bench, much to the disappointment to the "conservative-statist" block.

Most justices, with few exceptions, tend to move left after being sworn in.  If Judge Sotomayor already has a similar ideological approach as Justice Souter, I can only imagine she will move further left and be even more pro-State.  She is already on the record that her race (Puerto Rican) and her gender play a role in her decision making.  By this, I understand her to be in favor of the egalitarian agenda.  Is this (the nominee and the nomination process) something the forum generally discusses?  Thoughts on the nominee?

Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 124
Points 1,795
Justin D replied on Wed, May 27 2009 9:34 AM

More rubber band laws based on feelings and social responsibility. I'm not really worried as it is just more of same. McCain probably would have appointed this lady.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,687
Points 22,990
Bogart replied on Wed, May 27 2009 3:19 PM

Another justice who will only speed up the destruction of private society from its already hectic pace.

As for the importance of justices, they aren't important at all.  They reflect the worst in current society and have never had any respect for the wording of the Constitution and worse for individual liberty and limited government.  At various times the Supreme Court of the US approved the following and in most cases still does.  All items below are antithetical to individual liberty and against my reading of the Constitution:

  1. Slavery
  2. Allowing undeclared wars-Still does.
  3. Alien and Sedition Acts-Still does, Patroit Act?
  4. Death Penalty.-Still does.
  5. Reconstruction
  6. Jim Crow Laws
  7. Social Security, the regulatory system and various other obvious violations of the 9th and 10th ammendments.-Still does.
  8. Bailouts-Still does.
  9. Un-uniform and unequal taxation-Still does.
  10. Anti-Trust Enforcement-Still does.
  11. Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto-Still does.
  12. Central Banking and the Federal Reserve System-Still does.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 518
Points 9,355

Bogart:

Another justice who will only speed up the destruction of private society from its already hectic pace.

As for the importance of justices, they aren't important at all.  They reflect the worst in current society and have never had any respect for the wording of the Constitution and worse for individual liberty and limited government.  At various times the Supreme Court of the US approved the following and in most cases still does.  All items below are antithetical to individual liberty and against my reading of the Constitution:

  1. Slavery
  2. Allowing undeclared wars-Still does.
  3. Alien and Sedition Acts-Still does, Patroit Act?
  4. Death Penalty.-Still does.
  5. Reconstruction
  6. Jim Crow Laws
  7. Social Security, the regulatory system and various other obvious violations of the 9th and 10th ammendments.-Still does.
  8. Bailouts-Still does.
  9. Un-uniform and unequal taxation-Still does.
  10. Anti-Trust Enforcement-Still does.
  11. Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto-Still does.
  12. Central Banking and the Federal Reserve System-Still does.

What Constitution are you reading?  If slavery was (pre 13th A) against the Constitution, why was a fugitive slave clause added?  Lysander Spooner was so completely wrong on it being 'unconstitutional'.

The death penalty is completely constitutional.  Frankly I dont understand why some libertarians are against it.  In a stateless society I predict there will be more executions than the elites allow.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Wed, May 27 2009 4:09 PM
What about slavery to the government? post 13th A. didn't abolish that.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 518
Points 9,355

DD5:
What about slavery to the government? post 13th A. didn't abolish that.

Touché

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Spideynw replied on Wed, May 27 2009 4:27 PM

Lyle D. Riggs:
I have not followed this forum long enough to know if the nomination of a supreme court justice merits special attention or if it is just another subject.

Just another subject.

Lyle D. Riggs:
I am curious about the community's reaction, if any, to the nomination process and the nominee.  Judge Sonia Sotomayor is being touted as someone with similar ideology to Justice Souter whom she is replacing on the bench.  This ought to scare all anti-statists.

Just about everything the state does scares me.

Lyle D. Riggs:
Most justices, with few exceptions, tend to move left after being sworn in.

It depends on what you mean by "to the left".  I would guess most anyone in the government moves towards fascism/socialism.

 

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 113
Points 2,255
Solarist replied on Wed, May 27 2009 4:56 PM

sicsempertyrannis:
The death penalty is completely constitutional.  Frankly I dont understand why some libertarians are against it.  In a stateless society I predict there will be more executions than the elites allow.

 

My understanding of libertarian punishment theory is that the aggressor/criminal should be dealt back what he or she is guilty of doing times two... So two deaths for a death caused by them, although that is not possible as they only have one life to give.  Furthermore only victims(or their family/heirs) can forgive criminals for their crimes correct?  

 

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 113
Points 2,255
Solarist replied on Wed, May 27 2009 4:57 PM

I don't mean to derail topic though, wondering if that is a correct understanding is all.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Solarist:

sicsempertyrannis:
The death penalty is completely constitutional.  Frankly I dont understand why some libertarians are against it.  In a stateless society I predict there will be more executions than the elites allow.

 

My understanding of libertarian punishment theory is that the aggressor/criminal should be dealt back what he or she is guilty of doing times two... So two deaths for a death caused by them, although that is not possible as they only have one life to give.  Furthermore only victims(or their family/heirs) can forgive criminals for their crimes correct?  

    The issue of repercussion is not universal as far as I understand.  I agree that the victim has a say in the repercussions (which includes all inquiries of repercussion such as forgive or don't forgive, etc...).  A victim not coerced in this inquiry has the liberty and thus has a choice in the question of repercussion, as opposed to the question of repercussion being coerced upon the victim.  The former leaves the option on the table for the victim to choose mercy upon the criminal.  Now how far to go in terms of proportionality, what kind of repercussions, who has a say - only the victim, not the victim, does the rest of society have involvement - and other events are still being intellectually pursued.  

    I recognize rights as universal, but questions of repercussion are more varied as far as I understand.  Here's a thread to show you just how much the discussion on repercussions becomes involved.

     Hope that helps.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,491
Points 43,390
scineram replied on Wed, May 27 2009 5:41 PM

What is with 9, 11 and 12? And 6 were not federal.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 518
Points 9,355

scineram:

What is with 9, 11 and 12? And 6 were not federal.

I can tell Bogart is a 14th Amendment libertarian.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 881
Points 15,030
banned replied on Wed, May 27 2009 6:28 PM

Solarist:
My understanding of libertarian punishment theory is that the aggressor/criminal should be dealt back what he or she is guilty of doing times two...

 

There is no such thing as libertarian punishment theory.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 113
Points 2,255
Solarist replied on Wed, May 27 2009 6:32 PM

i think meant it more like "libertarian theories of punishment"

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 881
Points 15,030
banned replied on Wed, May 27 2009 7:16 PM

Those don't exist. There is no punishment in a libertarian society. Justice is reciprocal.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (15 items) | RSS