You’ve heard me mention, from time to time, that my criticism of legal conservatism, broadly speaking, is that the conservative component of the libertarian-conservative alliance that makes up legal conservatism is too often reliant on stare decisis — and so too deferential to precedent — to beat back bad law that has become entrenched. Libertarians, on the other hand, are more amenable to so-called “judicial activism” — if in fact that activism is deployed in the service of a fidelity to the Constitution that prior rulings conveniently bracketed.
Reason’s Damon Root discusses the divide in the July issue of Reason — in which conservatives are depicted as pro-government (or majoritarian), while libertarians, not surprisingly, are depicted as pro liberty.
Personally, I happen to believe the real divide happens somewhere in between the two poles, and requires mutual capitulation — conservatives need to adopt a more willing embrace of aggressive judicial review; and libertarians need to be more respectful of the role of legislatures and enumerated rights — but Root’s article, slanted toward the libertarian position though it is (and a certain idea of the libertarian position at that; for instance, I happen to believe Thomas is at once the most libertarian Justice, yet he is also the Justice who routinely hits the proper conservative note, as I see it), is worth reading for its candor in exploring the distinctions within legal conservatism as a movement.
Not to go OT, JG — because this too should drive aggressive judicial review — but have you written on the phenomenon of a recent law or policy clearly violating a prior right and liberty?
Not sure, JHo. If I did, it probably came from a pair of talking jeans.
I always bristle at the concept and phrasing of conservative judicial activism. Interesting read, Jeff. Thanks.
Actually, I bristle at leftists trying to call it judicial activism, when it is actually just adherence to the founding principles.
Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about this often. I’ll see if I can dig something up. Good point, JD, in regards to the shitheads calling it “activism”. First off, they don’t so much engage in activism as agitation. Secondly, the goal of folks like Judge Napolitano is adherence to constitutional tenets. Something those same shitheads don’t really share.
They sure as hell better incorporate the 2nd.
Funny thing, that stare decisis. Did anyone give a rrrriiiip about Plessy v. Ferguson when they argued Brown v. Topeka Board of Education? Hell no, they didn’t! They argued that Plessy was just plain wrong.
Dammit, I want Justices who can look at Wickard v. Filburn and declare it the metric assload of bullshit that it is, stare decisis be damned.
stare decisis is over rated like baracky
The problem with the libertarian-conservative alliance is that libertarians are really progressives.
Seriously, I just found out myself, I was as surprised as you probably are.
Is it any wonder the Republicans are in such a mess?
That piece you link, B Moe, is fundamentally muddled.
Wouldn’t it be better to examine Wilson by his policy rather than his words?
If you think progressives are libertarians I think it would be better if you avoided examining anything more complex than your own shoelaces for the time being.
Perhaps velcro shoes would be best.
That US News piece is clown work. Big colorful floppy shoes sans Hegel.
Conservatives aren’t pro-liberty so it’s not to be expected that conservative judges would be I don’t think. Thomas is an aberration I think.
Bless him.
Rather a broad-brush statement. But then, some conservatives acknowledge the rights of legislators, on behalf of the electorate, to make what they consider to be bad laws — provided those laws don’t impinge on rights enumerated in the Constitution.
See, eg., Thomas in Lawrence.
Others see such reasoning as “not pro-liberty.” Me, I see a judge doing his job.
it’s an ethos, not an analytical framework what’s lacking
If conservatives had planted their flag on the hill of liberty then we wouldn’t be where we are today. No. Their primary headline-capturing down to the wire hold your breath objection to Obamacare wasn’t that it was a goddamn impoverishing rape of liberty it was cause… it might maybe could fund the odd abortion.
That is not an ethos of freedom that is an ethos of masturbation.
That wouldn’t allow for a Beck bashing piece, bh. Those seem to draw traffic.
He highlighted The Road to Serfdom on TV tonight. And now it’s #1 at Amazon. What’s funny is that he mostly talked about it with a Russian economist who read it from under lock and key with special permission and a nondisclosure contract, because he was an academic economist. Aside from that, according to this Russian, you could find yourself moving to Siberia for reading it.
I wonder how many people have to buy a book for it to shoot to #1 at Amazon like that.
You’re confusing Bart Stupak with a conservative, ‘feets.
You can say that for some, ‘feets, but not for others. That’s why it’s an overly broad critique.
You think that was Jeff’s concern?
Mine?
Was it even the main concern of most the pro-life people? It might have sounded that way, at times, but then only because of Stupak. IMHO.
I remember the speeches. Conservative after conservative rose to speak about… abortion. Fuck off I though to myself as I watch liberties wither on the vine. If this passes and America becomes a sad dirty socialist unfree cocksucker little country, them who among you is to judge an abortion?
What happened to better dead than red? A hollow slogan if ever there was in cowardly failshit America. Freedom died whilst conservatives jacked off to abortion rescue fantasies.
Too slow, what Pablo said a couple minutes before me.
On the other topic, I had no idea that Beck put The Road to Serfdom at #1. Holy shit. That’s a very positive development. And so he’s an official very positive development maker.
*thought* to myself I mean
Yeah, again, it feels sorta overly broad, ‘feets. I only jack off to lesbian abortion rescue fantasies myself.
and *watched* liberties… jeez I’m grumpy and misspelly I’m going back to my vacation now.
I don’t recall once writing about abortion in all the times I criticized Obamacare. Wasn’t even on my radar, really.
That’s not what I remember Boehner screaming about on the House floor. I think you’ve got a perception issue on this one if you think the opposition was all about abortion, aside from the fact that Team D’s opposition was all about abortion. Team R was a solid “no” all the way across.
you’re not a conservative though not really just kinda
See, you’re not a Jesustard.
do we need another example?
ok
If conservatives had planted their flag on the hill of liberty then we wouldn’t be where we are today. No. If homosexual cowards like John McCain weren’t so impressed with their own cocksuckery righteousness we’d still have ephedrine on the market and much less fascist salt-banning silliness floating about.
Pablo gets it.
No. I’m not a social conservative, and beyond that, I’m not a particular strain of social conservative (the kind that wants to use the courts in the same way liberals do).
The reason you speak in overly broad terms about conservatives on the back end is that you’ve defined them in overly narrow terms on the front end. Adjust your abacus accordingly and all shall be well with the world.
I will work on my abacus.
He’s actually pushed 3 books into the current Top 10. Serfdom, George Washington’s Sacred Fire (#7), and his own yet-to-be-released novel(#8).
People read. Who knew?
men of few words are the best men
That’s awfully good news to hear Hayek is going to be read, if only because as Beck suggested, people who’ve never encountered Hayek will be asking themselves, “How come I haven’t been asked to read this before? How come no-one mentioned this when I was in school?”
If people are reading, we might still have a chance.
Beck is a surprising sort of guy.
“Beck is a surprising sort of guy.”
He’s had that same “Aha!” moment himself not so long ago, which in real-time is quite different from most tv talk business.
Think I should send him a copy of Natural Right and History? heh
I feel a bit more optimistic now.
It’s a pleasant feeling.
I feel like Red Auerbach is angry somewhere.
Los Lagadores showed up to play tonight. Derek Fischer is like the new Robert Horry.
red auerbach was always angry
but i like to always call
him crusty
Not only did the Caps get Strasberg, but that got that freakish mutant catcher, Harper, who is supposed to be one of the best pure hitters in a long long long long long long time.
That’s what I’m going to write in the note if I ever decide to hang myself.
J. Madison was a tiny Red Auerbach, but without the cigar.
the washington nationals
ha!
please
ur dreaming..
last place must be a comfort
I really never wished to be quoted on a suicide note. I would hope that were I ever to be quoted, it would be in a manner that provoked smiles and laughter, or even anger if directed at the proper people. On a suicide note? Excuse me while I go eat my shotgun.
Did I say Caps? I meant Nats. Either way, their future is so bright they gotta wear shades.
isnt there like
a world cup happening or
something
whats the over/under in the usa england game
i mean match..
half?
whats half a goal or score,,?
inquireing minds want to seem like
they care
We should quiz Silver Whistle on that one (USA-ENG) buttons, he’ll have the straight scoop.
there is no proper people anymore we skipped the light fandango and all conservatives offer anymore is a righter shade of fail I think
Curses.
buttons – I think one of the English players, a longtime player on their team, got hurt in the last exhibition. If that is the case, they should only beat the US by about 8-1.
He highlighted The Road to Serfdom on TV tonight. And now it’s #1 at Amazon.
Beck defeats Obama again! Cleverly avoiding Obama’s “too much confusing info on the internet” proscription.
But next it’ll be “books”.
i’ll take that bet!
8 to one?
reminds of those crazy odds that
our old six foot four
i forget his name..
big dude
rode horses..
was a surveyor or something..
wait a minute
i have his picture here in my pocket,,
barbara bush!
whats a myth?
a traditional story accepted as history
serves to explain the world view of people
if i say bobby orr again..
‘feets, shall I open a thread on the evils of conservatism? We can get that out of our systems then.
As you know, being correct is generally best served with a side of balance.
‘feets confuses liberty with license. Typical liberal mistake. Just because you can legally do something doesn’t mean you should do something morally. Liberals like feets don’t want to hear that, so they advocate having the government ban Tebow commercials, or allow pastors to be prosecuted for hate crimes for preaching, or say that organizations like the Salvation Army or the Catholic Church shouldn’t be able to compete for government contracts to do things like adoption or drug treatment that they might historically do better than “secular” organizations.
just because you shouldn’t do something morally doesn’t mean some fagged out self-styled Christian needs to yap their fag mouf
that is also to be confuzzling license wif liberty I think
find where I have ever advocated any of those things, lying dirty Christian liar
So ‘feets basic argument is … if ur a godbotherer, shut up? Seems I’ve heard that somewhere before.
Well, they may not agree. And certainly you’ll agree they have that right.
Fagged out self-styled Christians: can’t live with ’em, can’t crucify ’em.
Sometimes America sucks, right happy?
no DarthRove that is not supported by my comments either
Well, they may not agree. And certainly you’ll agree they have that right.
Yes I agree wholeheartedly. The keyword is needs. Nobody needs, for example, to hold a little girls’ dance recital up before the nation for vilification, but that is not at all the same as saying they shouldn’t be free to.
here is Miss Lohan singing a song for you I found it one day at Mr. Veit’s blog
“Did anyone give a rrrriiiip about Plessy v. Ferguson when they argued Brown v. Topeka Board of Education? Hell no, they didn’t”
William Rhenquist did.
Sure it’s supported, ‘feets. If a FOSSXian wants/needs/whatevs to exercise self-expression, you’ve made it eminently clear that you don’t want to hear it regardless of the mode of communication you’re currently using or wish to use. Since all FOSSXians everywhere aren’t apprised of your channel list, they need to avoid any possible means of reaching you. Which, in this non-posthuman, non-hive-mind world of reality means, shut up so’s I don’t have to put up with hearing your fag mouf.
Kinda like whenever anything touching on Palin was discussed here (pro, con, meh, lookit this, whatever), you’d get so apoplectic that anyone would DARE put photons forming themselves into marks that looked like “Sarah Palin” in front of your eyes that you’d spend days rabbiting on about cumsluts, hoochies, whoors, caribou (maybe not, can’t remember) and whatever else your particular frisson of rage wanted to attach itself to.
So calm down, buddy. If I can get used to the fact that people disagree with me even when I’m right 100% of the time (and I am), so can you.
Mr. Darth the dirty socialist egregiousness of Barack the Defiler is to be understood as a warning with respect to the swingings of pendulums I think. The potentials of abuse are vast vast vast now that the precedence of willful and self-righteous defiance of the will of the people to the tune of trillions and trillions of dollars newly bestains the presidency of our defiled little country… it’s just how we roll now until we stop rolling that way.
And rolling back brooks no delay if it is to succeed. And what rolling back will demand is a modesty of governance what is elusive to self-styled believey ones, to state it as calmly as possible. A modesty of governance what says that government needs to be fiercely disciplined with respect to the invasions and penetrations of its unholy tentacles. And they’re bugging me cause of we have to get on the road south to go to the happiest place on erf so I can’t more better elaborate.
William Rhenquist didn’t agree with that statement. If you want an example that will let you go after Rhenquest, how about Dickerson v. US?
Here. Peace offering.
Darth, the first year I moved out to where I live now (almost three years ago) we had a baby turtle explosion. Baby turtles, like that one up there, everywhere.
Since then, no baby turtles. But, I often must brake and help ’em across the road.
‘feets, I thought when you came back you’d be a renewed voice of reason.
We can only roll back things if we don’t offend anyone while doing it?
I like to offend everyone equally.
I’m all egalitarian that way. Or fucking insane, if you believe a certain Deputy District Attorney and his talking egrets.
nothing matters if this all shatters nothing lasts forever but I’m praying that we’re staying together I think Mr. Howard butcept our little country’s ambitions right and left exceed their grasp is what I think
ok bye hafta get my disney on I see you later
Don’t worry, feets, mickey mouse is a constant companion.
The Individualism of Classical Liberalists? Kinda looks like
The ChristianistSarah Palin made analmost enlightenedbrilliant political move when she resigned her Governorship, no? But beware and very afraid, y’all polite society super-empths, ’cause she’sa godbothering deviantsimply too got damn “offending” that-a-way. And that’ll never work.I am more a pooh bear kinda guy really. oh. Sarah Palin is an evil cooze Mr. Peden, just to be clear.
But you know what is the most not America? I will tell you. The fag-ass bumblefuck president wants to make our BP friends pay the salaries of the people he laid off with his fag-ass panicky moratorium.
It is shameful how trashy our once-respectable country has become and so fast. A contemptible thieving trashy impoverished fag-ass cowardly little country. The rest of the world is justified in pissing on our little country’s head, so shameful and tacky and trashy are we. The world should be on notice that merica is *not* open for business… we are a trashy gangsta society what will fuck you up if you invest here.
Shameful. Our country tis of shit I think.
You can leave, you know.
And in his confirmation hearing said that he was mirroring the opinions of Justice Jackson’s views. Tenative views, it turns out as he didn’t join the dissent as expected. Further there are many case where Justice Rhenquist relied on Brown as a precedent much less ever making any move to weakin or reverse it. Your grounds for characterization seem more akin to quicksand.
So. You just don’t want to talk about Dickerson?
Rehnquist.
Yet, said dickhead never did anything about it when he had the chance? Multiple chances? Totality of evidence need not apply?
As I mentioned, Dickerson is a decision where you can freely beat up on Rhenquist. Brown, not so much.
You are as cuddly and soft as a week-dead porcupine, happy.
Christ on a crutch, I can’t believe they actually brought up Ed “the Head” Meese.
“You don’t think we go around arresting innocent people, do you?”
What a poltroon.
And if that’s the case, you still have no leg to stand on.
No. Brown overturned precedent. Rhenquist followed precedent, both Brown> when the chances arose, and Miranda in Dickerson.
“And if that’s the case, you still have no leg to stand on. ”
What no leg? Someone asked if Plessy came up during Brown. It did. Billie R. was right there arguing it was “right.” That doesn’t mean he can’t later change his mind, like any sensible person should.
“No. Brown overturned precedent. ”
I know. I mean, follow the precedent that Brown set.
One of the precendets that Brown set (or rather supported) was overturning bad precedent.
And you took that as license to slam CJ Rhenquist, with only circumstantial evidence that requires peering thorugh a peephole to maintain the perspective you’d like others to share. I’ve suggested an alternative case where you can slam on the man all you like, as you’d have actual historical record to back you and you’ve declined to do so.
I guess Miranda warnings just don’t have the cachè that segregation does.
“And you took that as license to slam CJ Rhenquist, with only circumstantial evidence that requires peering thorugh a peephole to maintain the perspective you’d like others to share. ”
Circumstancial?
“I’ve suggested an alternative case where you can slam on the man all you like”
I haven’t seen enough to slam him on that case, you just keep mentioning it.
You should read it, or at least about it.
Yes, circumstantial. Absent an indication he was lying, and I know of none, he explained the circumstances at his confirmation hearing. Further, given his judicial history, certainly seems he was telling the truth. You simply continue to privilege your interpretation of a brief written by a clerk with no regard for the rest of the facts.
Carlos – You are arguing with an output generator, a dishonest lying cowardly little fuck. Save your breath.
So I see, JD. Thanks for the heads up. Oh, you left out disrespectful.
“You’re as cuddly as a cactus, you’re as charming as an eel, Mr.
Grinch‘Feets!”Carlos – Disrespectful as well, yes. The list of negative attributes of that lying douchenozzle is so long that it would take days, and likely crash the site, were it all to be laid out.
We should quiz Silver Whistle on that one (USA-ENG) buttons, he’ll have the straight scoop.
Latest is England 1.54, USA 7.6, and a draw 4.4.
I’m not sure why the bookies think the odds need to be expressed in relation to unity these days – what was the matter with 3/2, 38/5 and 22/5? Must be a clause in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Yeah, yeah, SW. I bet you secretly long for the days when you paid a guinea thrupence three farthings for stuff, too.
ANTI-DECIMALIZATIONIST!!!!!!
Damn these metric odds. BRING BACK IMPERIAL ODDS!!!!
And farthings were cool. They had a pretty little wren. And thruppeny bits – not only great rhyming slang, but such a cool shape, easily distinguished in one’s pocketful of change. But most of all I miss the old silver sixpence; a Christmas pud just isn’t the same without one.
Being sixpence-less also makes it harder for Brian May to get new guitar picks.
Does the US advance out of the group round SW? I’d assumed as much but then I ain’t no soccer aficionado.
sdferr – From what I have read, yes. I am pretty good with a line, and have no idea what those odds were that SW gave. Does that mean Eng is 1.54:1, USA 7.6:1, and a draw is 4.4:1?
“Does that mean Eng is 1.54:1, USA 7.6:1, and a draw is 4.4:1?”
Si.
Does the US advance out of the group round SW? I’d assumed as much but then I ain’t no soccer aficionado.
I think so, yes. Especially if they get a draw with England first match. I am surprised they didn’t undergo altitude training, but maybe they figured 4900 ft wasn’t worth bothering about. The England team certainly seem to be feeling it. There are goals in Dempsey and Donovan, Howard is a superb keeper, and Onyewu is decent (if fit) in defense. A Jackson on the draw looks reasonable.