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?
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.
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:
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: Slavery Allowing undeclared wars-Still does. Alien and Sedition Acts-Still does, Patroit Act? Death Penalty.-Still does. Reconstruction Jim Crow Laws Social Security, the regulatory system and various other obvious violations of the 9th and 10th ammendments.-Still does. Bailouts-Still does. Un-uniform and unequal taxation-Still does. Anti-Trust Enforcement-Still does. Bills of Attainder and Ex Post Facto-Still does. 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.
DD5:What about slavery to the government? post 13th A. didn't abolish that.
Touché
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.
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?
I don't mean to derail topic though, wondering if that is a correct understanding is all.
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.
What is with 9, 11 and 12? And 6 were not federal.
scineram: What is with 9, 11 and 12? And 6 were not federal.
I can tell Bogart is a 14th Amendment libertarian.
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.
i think meant it more like "libertarian theories of punishment"
Those don't exist. There is no punishment in a libertarian society. Justice is reciprocal.