Will We Ever Get a Libertarian Supreme Court Justice?

[clb09]

YouTube - Al Franken Jokes With Sonia Sotomayor About Perry Mason (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjiwI_S2qpc)


...or will "senators" continue to NOT ask important questions regarding Constitutional Interpretation during confirmation hearings?

[Andrew-Austin]

No. The state will always opt for the most liberal interpretation of the constitution as possible.

[pcosmar]

No.
Well , I doubt it. :(

[Krugerrand]

You owe me 2 minutes of my life for including that video.

[clb09]

You owe me 2 minutes of my life for including that video.

Now imagine the whole of the USA watching these hearings on TV and expecting their representatives to ask good, solid questions about her views on the Constitution...but getting this bullshit.

That is why I included the video.

Our senators are spending valuable time wasting time.

[Krugerrand]

Now imagine the whole of the USA watching these hearings on TV and expecting their representatives to ask good, solid questions about her views on the Constitution...but getting this bullshit.

That is why I included the video.

Our senators are spending valuable time wasting time.

True enough. They deserve their pay docked for time wasted as such.

[heavenlyboy34]

The supreme court itself is anti-libertarian in nature, so no. If you mean a LP member, maybe.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

I tend to doubt it unless we have a revolution.

[sparebulb]

We will never see a libertarian or constitutionalist on the court until the day that the court is rendered irrelevant.

[CMoore]

How about Hugo Black or John Paul Stevens?

[Krugerrand]

I can't help but wonder if any of the current justices could be "converted."

[Brian4Liberty]

Franken is following the lead of most of the Senators. No substance, and a lot of happy horseshit.

[Peace&Freedom]

The bigger problem may be that the Court is systemically inclined to have evolved in the anti-liberty manner in which it has, such that a Libertarian Justice would merely be a band-aid applied to a cancer. As argued the other day on LRC:

"One of the most insightful of the Antifederalists was Robert Yates, a New York judge who, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, withdrew because the convention was exceeding its instructions. Yates wrote as Brutus in the debates over the Constitution. Given his experience as a judge, his claim that the Supreme Court would become a source of almost unlimited federal over-reaching was particularly insightful.

Brutus asserted that the Supreme Court envisioned under the Constitution would become a source of massive abuse because they were beyond the control "both of the people and the legislature," and not subject to being "corrected by any power above them." As a result, he objected to the fact that its provisions justifying the removal of judges didn't include making rulings that went beyond their constitutional authority, which would lead to judicial tyranny.

Brutus argued that when constitutional grounds for making rulings were absent, the Court would create grounds "by their own decisions." He thought that the power it would command would be so irresistible that the judiciary would use it to make law, manipulating the meanings of arguably vague clauses to justify it.

The Supreme Court would interpret the Constitution according to its alleged "spirit," rather than being restricted to just the "letter" of its written words (as the doctrine of enumerated rights, spelled out in the Tenth Amendment, would require).

Further, rulings derived from whatever the court decided its spirit was would effectively "have the force of law," due to the absence of constitutional means to "control their adjudications" and "correct their errors." This constitutional failing would compound over time in a "silent and imperceptible manner," through precedents that built on one another.

Expanded judicial power would empower justices to shape the federal government however they desired, because the Supreme Court's constitutional interpretations would control the effective power vested in government and its different branches. That would hand the Supreme Court ever-increasing power, in direct contradiction to Alexander Hamilton's argument in Federalist 78 that the Supreme Court would be "the least dangerous branch."

Brutus predicted that the Supreme Court would adopt "very liberal" principles of interpreting the Constitution. He argued that there had never in history been a court with such power and with so few checks upon it, giving the Supreme Court "immense powers" that were not only unprecedented, but perilous for a nation founded on the principle of consent of the governed. Given the extent to which citizens' power to effectively withhold their consent from federal actions has been eviscerated, it is hard to argue with Brutus's conclusion..."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/galles11.1.html

[heavenlyboy34]

The bigger problem may be that the Court is systemically inclined to have evolved in the anti-liberty manner in which it has, such that a Libertarian Justice would merely be a band-aid applied to a cancer. As argued the other day on LRC:

"One of the most insightful of the Antifederalists was Robert Yates, a New York judge who, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, withdrew because the convention was exceeding its instructions. Yates wrote as Brutus in the debates over the Constitution. Given his experience as a judge, his claim that the Supreme Court would become a source of almost unlimited federal over-reaching was particularly insightful.

Brutus asserted that the Supreme Court envisioned under the Constitution would become a source of massive abuse because they were beyond the control "both of the people and the legislature," and not subject to being "corrected by any power above them." As a result, he objected to the fact that its provisions justifying the removal of judges didn't include making rulings that went beyond their constitutional authority, which would lead to judicial tyranny.

Brutus argued that when constitutional grounds for making rulings were absent, the Court would create grounds "by their own decisions." He thought that the power it would command would be so irresistible that the judiciary would use it to make law, manipulating the meanings of arguably vague clauses to justify it.

The Supreme Court would interpret the Constitution according to its alleged "spirit," rather than being restricted to just the "letter" of its written words (as the doctrine of enumerated rights, spelled out in the Tenth Amendment, would require).

Further, rulings derived from whatever the court decided its spirit was would effectively "have the force of law," due to the absence of constitutional means to "control their adjudications" and "correct their errors." This constitutional failing would compound over time in a "silent and imperceptible manner," through precedents that built on one another.

Expanded judicial power would empower justices to shape the federal government however they desired, because the Supreme Court's constitutional interpretations would control the effective power vested in government and its different branches. That would hand the Supreme Court ever-increasing power, in direct contradiction to Alexander Hamilton's argument in Federalist 78 that the Supreme Court would be "the least dangerous branch."

Brutus predicted that the Supreme Court would adopt "very liberal" principles of interpreting the Constitution. He argued that there had never in history been a court with such power and with so few checks upon it, giving the Supreme Court "immense powers" that were not only unprecedented, but perilous for a nation founded on the principle of consent of the governed. Given the extent to which citizens' power to effectively withhold their consent from federal actions has been eviscerated, it is hard to argue with Brutus's conclusion..."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/galles11.1.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/galles11.1.html)

That's a brilliant article that all should read, IMHO.:cool:

[shooter_tx]

No. The state will always opt for the most statist/authoritarian interpretation of the constitution as possible.
Fixed.

source (http://reason.com/blog/show/134824.html)