Top 10 Libertarian Supreme Court Decisions

Sometimes the High Court gets it right.

(Page 2 of 9)

9. Kyllo v. United States (2001)

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Yet in case after case, the Supreme Court has undermined that protection, leaving the people subject to an increasing variety of government searches, many conducted without a warrant. Occasionally, however, the Court does hold the government accountable under the Fourth Amendment. One memorable example came in the 2001 case of Kyllo v. United States.

At issue was the federal government’s use of warrantless thermal imaging to detect signs of marijuana cultivation inside of a suspect’s house. According to the government, no warrant was needed because the thermal imaging device detected “only heat radiating from the external surface of the house.” In other words, since the telltale heat was basically discernible from outside of the property, the Fourth Amendment didn’t apply.

Writing for an unusual 5-4 majority line-up that included both conservative Justice Clarence Thomas and liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the government’s dubious theory. “Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion,” Scalia wrote, “the surveillance is a ‘search’ and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.” The Fourth Amendment lived on to fight another day.

Next: Putting the President in Check

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Jeff||

    Whether the justices are giving the green light to eminent domain abuse, securing absolute immunity for dissolute prosecutors, or rubber-stamping the latest power grab from Washington

    Don't forget rewriting laws from the bench so that they can pass constitutional muster.

  • Killazontherun||

    lease retire the Scalia picture. It no longer serves the intended purpose.

  • ||

    Does Reason own the image or something?

  • mr simple||

    Dos that mean they'll hang it from the rafters in tribute?

  • ||

    is it a libertarian court decision if the logic is judicially activist, but the RESULT is a libertarian benefit?

    iow, the courts could rule tomorrow that all state laws against mj possession are unconstitutional.

    that would be a great libertarian RESULT, but it would be based on specious reading of the constitution (note: i said STATE laws), since there is nothing in the constitution prohibiting states from passing drug laws.

    that's my question.

    another example would be lawrence v. texas. the law in texas was clearly BAD law, and as unlibertarian as it could be, but was in UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

    assume arguendo it wasn't

    it was clearly a libertarian result (the decision), but i don't think libertarians should cheer for decisions that circumvent the constitution in order to bring about a libertarian RESULT.

    similarly, many (honest) liberal scholars recognize that heller is correct on the law. they may be against citizen possession of handguns, but they recognize the SOLUTION is to change the constitution, not make constitutional law

  • ||

    You can make an argument that both those ruling would be constitutional here:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    I.e. personal ownership of your body is a right retained by the people.

    Also, the constitution (and democracy, federalism, etc.) is a means to an end not an end in and of itself.

  • ||

    my point is simple. inventing penumbras and emanations to bring about a libertarian result is not good law, and imo libertarianism and proper constitutional respect necessarily go hand in hand.

    it would be wrong and unlibertarian for a libertarian leaning judge to make up penumbras etc. in order to achieve a libertarian result

    the reality is a lot of laws that are distinctly unlibertarian and distinctly BAD LAW are also clearly constitutional

    one of the reasons i chose to live in WA is i live under a constitution that ACTUALLY covers shit like privacy, etc.

    the federal one does not, only in a roundabout way.

  • $park¥||

    What's your point here? Are you saying that the SCOTUS can only decided Constitutionality?

    Because:

    "The Supreme Court has two fundamental functions. On the one hand, it must interpret and expound all congressional enactments brought before it in proper cases; in this respect its role parallels that of the state courts of final resort in making the decisive interpretation of state law. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has power (superseding that of all other courts) to examine federal and state statutes and executive actions to determine whether they conform to the U.S. Constitution."

  • ||

    the point is simple. and frequently made by libertarian legal analysts

    1) lots of BAD BAD BAD law, like many state anti-drug laws are CLEARLY constitutional
    2) contrarily, there are some really good laws that can't be passed because they would be unconstitutional

    the first test of ANY law , prior to whether it would be good orbad policy is - is it constitutional

    the point is that imo it is not "libertarian" to repeal bad POLICY (e.g. state drug laws) by inventing some obviously nonexistent "right" in the constitution

    subverting the constitution for a good cause is still wrong, and is distinctly unlibertarian

    the venue is amendment or legsislation.

    again, read the last sentence in your quote. that is exactly right. state drug laws DO conform (most of them) with the US constitution). that SUCKS, but it's a legal reality.

    subverting the constitution is not the answe

  • $park¥||

    I guess I'd better check over the Constitution then to see which "rights" my masters allow me to have. It's too bad that I can only have the "rights" that are written there. It would have been nice to have some part of government be able to provide a check on the legislature.

  • ||

    Dunphy's reasoning is the whole reason the 9th amendment was put in the bill of rights in the first place. Obviously it hasn't worked.

  • ||

    my reasoning is the reasoning of nearly every legal scholar

    seriously, it is a very bizarre and rare view to say that states are not within their power to criminalize drugs

    imo, they SHOULDn't

    but they clearly have that authoritah

  • Pip||

    "my reasoning is the reasoning of nearly every legal scholar"

    Of course it is, given that they all took your class at Yale.

    Fuckwad.

  • ||

    I guess I'd better check over the Constitution then to see which "rights" my masters allow me to have.

    And in a perfect world SCOTUS would never allow anyone's civil liberties to be violated regardless of what's written in the Constitution.

    Dunphy's question, do the means justify the ends wrt "subverting the constitution for a good cause" is quite valid in my opinion.

  • ||

    No it isn't valid because it ignores the existence of the 9th amendment. Protecting individual rights by applying the 9th is not subverting the constitution.

  • ||

    Dunphy brings up Lawrence v. Texas that was overturned by SCOTUS via 14th A due process. A shitty law overturned in a dubious manner. And your argument is what, exactly?

    That the ends justify the means because of the 9th, and any ruling that extends liberties is ipso facto valid?

  • ||

    this comment below spells it out better:

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_3178375

    The court may have used the wrong reasoning but anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. As he says there are unenumerated rights held by the people and through the 14th the states can't infringe on them. These rights include personal ownership, freedom of association and property rights which would obviously allow you to be free to engage in sodomy in your own home just as you would be able to take drugs in your own home. Freedom association and contract would also allow you to pay for that sex or those drugs.

  • ||

    So SCOTUS doing the right thing for the wrong reason doesn't matter because actually the law was unconstitutional if you really carefully read the Constitution and pay attention to the spirit of it, and understand the idea of contracts and freedom of association?

    In the real world the rule of law is actually important. I would love it if all these stupid laws could be overturned on libertarian principles and legally, but I would hate to see the 9th turned into the libertarian version of the commerce clause, not that that's likely to happen.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Freedom association and contract would also allow you to pay for that sex or those drugs.


    That would go even farther than Lawrence did. Lawrence did not address prostitution, so laws against prostitutional sodomy are not affected, and prior Supreme Court and appellate court decisions rejecting constitutional challenges to laws against prostitutional sodomy are still good law.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    imo libertarianism and proper constitutional respect necessarily go hand in hand.

    Not necessarily. Libertarianism is based on the foundation of the non-aggression principle (NAP*); the constitution is not based on this principle. Many libertarians do have a great respect for the constitution, but many do not. And both would properly be considered libertarians if they followed the NAP.

    *as well as private property and self ownership.

  • ||

    i would disagree, but i don't want to devolve into a wank over the meaning of the word.

    call them "assholes" then but imo people who would subvert the constitution for the proper result are not libertarians.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    But you are using words and words have meanings. A person can subvert the constitution all day long, think abolitionists, and still be libertarian.

  • Sudden||

    There is nothing unlibertarian about activism whatsoever. In fact, quite the opposite, activism (which is what the very idea of judicial review is) is generally libertarian.

    Libertarianism makes no claims to the legitimacy of majority rule, but rather the legitimacy of minority rights. Federalism and democracy are merely tools toward that end, but where they fly in the face of such liberties they are rightly struck down.

  • Tim||

    The ENTIRE war on drugs would seem to disagree with your premise.

  • ||

    by "activism" i mean inventing constitutional rights in court decisions in order to make a libertarian RESULT

    that is imo distinctly unlibertarian, since imo libertarianism first and foremost means respecting the constitution we have (not the one we wish we had) and recognizing the expnasion of rights beyond the constitution should occur by legislation or amendment, not making shit up

  • ||

    You don't have to be a constitutionalist to be a libertarian. Not at all:

    But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

    The Constitution is only useful when it leads to liberty. And as I said I think the 9th amendment would make any state prohibition or anti-sodomy law unconstitutional anyways.

  • ||

    Well I think the basic point Dunphy is raising whether the ends can ever justify the means, which is a pretty common tactic for the TEAMs to take when it is their means, especially the left.

    I rather associate constitutionalism with libertarianism, but you are right, they aren't the same thing by any means. But they come from the same wellspring, to enumerate and enforce negative rights.

  • ||

    Well PS the 9th amendment was but in the bill of rights specifically because many were worried (rightfully as it turns out) that enumerating some rights would lead to a government that infringed on those rights not enumerated.

  • ||

    Well PS the 9th amendment was but in the bill of rights specifically because many were worried (rightfully as it turns out) that enumerating some rights would lead to a government that infringed on those rights not enumerated.

    And that ship has long since sailed.

    You know, and I know that no one would put so much time and effort into enumerating rights just to have it all circumvented with, say, the commerce clause. But try talking to a TEAM BLUEer about the spirit of the Bill of Rights or even the right of us proles to interpret such a "complicated" document. So the sad reality is that without those enumerated rights, things would've already gotten much worse than they are today.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Great minds, etc...

  • ||

    Speak for yourself! My mind is decidedly mediocre.

  • Sudden||

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Hmmm.... to me that implies that recognizing rights that are retained by the people, even if not specifically enumerated within the Constitution, is not "inventing" rights.

    I'll agree that activism is wrong in cases where it creates law. But activism in cases where it obliterates laws are generally a positive in my view.

  • ||

    Dunphy thinks the 9th amendment is an invented penumbra and emanation.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    But was sodomy one of the rights retained by the people?

    Was slavery unconstitutional under the 9th Amendment, even prior to 1865?

  • ||

    Yes, it was. Slavery violates the first principles of Life, Liberty and Property.

    It is really a matter of how long it will take for society and the institutions of Government to accept those rights.

    Slavery, anti-sodomy laws, Jim Crow, forced segregation, suffrage, etc. all violated first principles, it just took a long time for society to catch up to and respect the ideal.

  • Rasilio||

    Dunphy your problem is that you presume that the Constitution grants rights when it clearly says it does not.

    The rights are inherent in the people, what the Constitution does is restrict government power.

    This means that when the court is being "activist" they are not inventing new rights but rather inventing new proscriptions on government actions which infringe on rights which preexisted.

    There is no need for a Constitutional guarantee to privacy, the question is does the government have the right to pry into your private affairs without prior cause. The answer here is clearly they do not without violating the 4th amendment, ergo whether there is any such thing as a right to privacy the government is not entitled to know all the private details of your life without first obtainig a search warrant.

    Similarly with state level drug restrictions, the onus is on each state to prove that their drug control laws do not violate any potential enumerated or unenumerated right that may exist. This means that some dealing with the sale or transport of large quantities of drugs may be Constitutional, however one would be hard pressed to show how laws against possession and private consumption are not violating a citizens for self determination.

  • ||

    utter rubbish

    the constitution RECOGNIZES rights, a point i have made repeatedly

    yuo can disagree, but imo the view that state drug laws are unconstitutional is a ridiculous fringe view only holdable if one believes in a very fluid, morphing "hey it means what i say it means" constitution

    sorry, i don't buy that shit from scalia, i don't buy it from alleged libertarians.

    read the constitution.

    there most definitely IS a need for a constitutional right to privacy. i chose WA because it has one

    the federal constitution does not.

    you can pretend it exists but that doesn't change reality

  • ||

    You have yet to address the existence of the 9th amendment which CLEARLY RECOGNIZES that not all rights are enumerated in the constitution.

    read the constitution.

  • Rasilio||

    Article 4 Section 2...

    "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

    Means that the citizens of each state possess the full rights of all citizens of the United States, ergo a State may no restrict rights that are possessed by US Citizens in general.

    4th Amendment
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    Means the government may not interfere with or investigate your life without probable cause and obtaining a warrant.

    9th Amendment
    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Means that there are rights which the people possess which may not be infringed even though they are not mentioned specifically in the Constitution.

    These plus the 14th amendments equal protection clause, which really just restates Article 4 Section 2 are all of the relevant sections of the Constitution, care to come back with some section of it that supports your claim?

  • ||

    inventing constitutional rights in court decisions in order to make a libertarian RESULT

    It has been said a couple of times, but here is the 9th amendment:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    followed by the 10th:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    and Finally the 14th (section 1):

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    It is pretty clear that People have rights not enumerated (9), They reserve those rights (10), and that the States are bound to respect them like the Federal Government (14).

  • Stormy Dragon||

    See, the problem is you're looking at the constitution completely backwards. You assume a government of unlimited power, except in those areas where the Constitution provides rights, when it should assume unlimited liberty except where the Constitution provides a power.

    So the proper question is not "where does the constitution provide people a right to take drugs?", but "where does the constitution provide a power to ban them?"

  • ||

    iow, the courts could rule tomorrow that all state laws against mj possession are unconstitutional.

    Striking down unconstitutional laws is not judicial activism.

    If the court say rewrote a law or invented a law then that would be judicial activism.

  • ||

    Also i should point out that with your specific example it would depend on how their decision was written.

    I think there is good constitutional grounds for striking down prohibition laws.

    But this by no means guarantees that the decision would use those grounds.

    If the court struck down the laws and their decision said they did it cuz they felt like it then I think that could be called judicial activism.

  • ||

    look, you are missing the point
    imo, state drug laws are CLEARLY constitutional, but if you disagree, ASSUME for the sake of argument they were

    would it be libertarian to CIRCUMVENT the constitution so as to find those laws unconstitutional and increase liberty

    clearly,. imo, the answer is no

    libertarianism imo means respecting the constitution, not subverting it for better results

  • ||

    No matter how many times you repeat CLEARLY in capital letters it doesn't make it so. Self ownership is a right CLEARLY held by the people even if it is not enumerated in the constitution, which the constitution allows through the 9th amendment.

  • Scarcity||

    I disagree that libertarianism means respecting the Constitution, and I've been thinking about this lately. What is the proper course of advocacy when the Constitution is in opposition to increased liberty?

    I'm coming generally to the conclusion that the US Constitution is libertarian enough that vehemently supporting it as a framework is preferable to advocaing strictly for a libertarian outcame, (further) damage to the Constitution be damned. Because it is a far better check on government power (yes, even in light of its current state) than are the tides of public opinion.

  • ||

    libertarianism imo means respecting the constitution, not subverting it for better results

    Slavery at one time was constitutional.

    As a libertarian i would be in favor of subverting the constitution to eliminate slavery.

    Obviously i would not do this for everything...but if the constitution did support drug laws (it does not) i think i would have no problem subverting it to eliminate them as i would have no problem subverting it to eliminate slavery.

  • ||

    Obviously i would not do this for everything...

    A counter example would be Income taxes. I would not be willing to subvert the constitution to eliminate the income tax even though I don't like income taxes and i think they should be eliminated.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    imo, state drug laws are CLEARLY constitutional, but if you disagree, ASSUME for the sake of argument they were

    Yeah, I find arguments are so much easier when I ask people to start out assuming my conclusion.

  • Fluffy||

    I think a 5th amendment challenge to a prohibition on the possession of a naturally occurring plant would pass muster with me.

  • ||

    A 1rst amendment challenge saying that the sale and consumption of pot is an economic activity and that economic activity is protected under freedom of expression would pass muster with me.

  • ||

    jesus christ. ok, well clearly judicial activism IS ok with you.

    fwiw, libertarian scholars are , correctly, near unanimity in that state laws against drug use ARE constitutional (at least constitutional vis a vis the federal constitution)

    subverting the constitution to get a libertarian result is just as bad as what libs do - subverting it to get a statist result

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    libertarian scholars are , correctly, near unanimity in that state laws against drug use ARE constitutional (at least constitutional vis a vis the federal constitution)

    Link??

  • ||

    oh for fuck's sake. spend about 10 minutes at volokh conspiracy and read shit by orin kerr, volokh, etc. respected libertarian scholars who have addressed the scotus for fuck's sake

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    So you are using one libertarian website to make the claim that there is near unanimity among libertarian scholars. I will check out volokh again as I have not been to the website in a while.

  • ||

    oh for fuck's sake. spend about 10 minutes at volokh conspiracy and read shit by orin kerr, volokh, etc. respected libertarian scholars who have addressed the scotus for fuck's sake

    This is unfair. Volokh argues about cases he can win in the real world in real courts. Your question was not about the real world but was one about how we feel the constitution should be interpreted. Volokh i think wisely avoids hypothetical utopias like the one you proposed us to defend and argue.

    I don't think you meant to move the goal post...but none the less you did.

  • Fluffy||

    The 5th amendment pretty clearly says you can't be denied your property without due process of law.

    And AFAIAC, "due process of law" means "you can lose your property as the result of a criminal fine" and not "we can pass laws taking away your right to use your property in pursuit of a particular public policy".

    To me, saying that you can't grow a particular plant on your own property - or, even worse, you can't keep a plant that spontaneously grows on your own property - is like saying you can't use or occupy it.

  • ||

    jesus christ. ok, well clearly judicial activism IS ok with you.

    I know i am a libertarian monster.

    From the article

    Writing for the majority, Justice James C. McReynolds nullified the statute. “Without doubt,” McReynolds declared, liberty “denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

    This is not a 1rst amendment argument. It is one of those non-numerated rights things (10th amendment?).

    Anyway i think your reaction you can safely be put into the conservative camp.

    Conservatism, unlike libertarianism, arose pretty much as a cultural opposition to the new deal. Conservatives generally agree that the government has the power to fuck over everyone....they just want to fuck people in a different position then the new deal left wants to.

    Libertarians have a very different perspective then this.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Counter hypothetical. It's 1851 and you've been called to serve on a jury of a man guilty of violating the Fugitve Slave Act. Would you vote to convict?

  • ||

    If drug prohibition is constitutional then why did they amend the constitution to prohibit alcohol?

    Obviously at one period in time outright prohibition was interpreted as unconstitutional.

    The constitution has not changed in any meaningful way in this regard since 1930.

    What has changed is the interpretation not the actual text.

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    Dunphy,
    The 14th amendment restricts the power of the states and there is nothing in it which enhances the power of the states.

    However the vague wording of the 14th amendment does lead to case law deciding the interpretation of that amendment with its penumbras and emanations etc.

    Is that the best way to do it? I'm not sure but it's not unconstitutional per the 14th, just messy.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Yet another agreement! The Lawrence v Texas argument was going to the be subject of my own post (regarding the result being good but the process bad).

  • ||

    we definitely agree on that one.

    absurd decision. expanded liberty, at the cost of gutting (yet again) constitutional law

  • williamh||

    Re: Youngstown Sheet Tube

    How many months was it between Truman's invoking of his "inherent power" and the Supreme Court's decisions? In that time, did the nationalization actually take place, or did the affected companies manage to get injunctions to stop it from happening?

    Sure, this is probably Googleable, but I'm a lazy man.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I don't know what happened, but an injunction could have been obtained pretty quickly on a pending case.

  • The Unknown Pundit||

    I'm just surprised that there are actually 10 decisions that can be cited.

  • ||

    Heh, this.

  • ||

    Sadly, there are only 9 decisions cited. There's no #6.

  • ||

    6 and 7 share a page.

  • ||

    Ah, true. Guess Heller and McDonald merged into one decision in my mind.

  • $park¥||

    "Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."

    It's nice to see that the Times and the government have finally come to an amicable agreement.

  • ||

  • KDN||

    If Paris Hilton's dog can shoot itself despite lacking hands, then clearly a handcuffed man can as well. You're just a cop hating bigot.

  • ||

    you are clearly ignorant of physics and biology.

    grab a gun in a handcuffed hand (behind back) and lean the front of your torso over. you CLEARLY can shoot yourself in the head.

    it's not easy, but it's far from impossible.

  • Pip||

    So what was the motive?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Making the police look bad, duh.

  • Andrew S.||

    Where did the gun come from? The officers said they searched him twice. Are they lying, or simply incompetent?

  • Syd Henderson||

    I'd put West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ahead of most of these. Otherwise, a good list.

  • Sudden||

    Others that warrant reference would be Lochner. Yes, I know Lochner was mentioned in one of the cases in here, but I think that is among the most seminal.

    Also, perhaps not mentioned because the Court didn't bother with it at the time it would've actually been meaningful, but Korematsu has to be pretty significant in the holding back the most egregious forms of tyranny possible.

  • Sudden||

    Looks like I forgot to close my italics after the first Lochner. Apologies.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    I don't support thought crimes but at least in this case they wouldn't be making up the "hate crime" part.

  • Pip||

    Indifference =/= hatred

  • ||

    An open and shut case like that really shows the absurdity of hate crime laws. What about the intent makes the crime anymore heinous? Had the race roles been reveresed would he still have bee charged with a hate crime?

  • ||

    Wow. Instead of saying anything about the heinousness of the crime, or the fact that people still think that way, instead every comment is about the hate-crime aspect of it.

    You stay classy guys ; )

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "A North Dakota court has preliminarily upheld the first-ever use of an unmanned drone to assist in the arrest of an American citizen."
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....rnings-07/

  • SugarFree||

    Suck it, North Dakota courts. I hope the robots destroy you first.

  • scareduck||

    The asshats at the NYT think the New York Times Co. v. United States was wrongly decided. The irony of this is lost on them.

  • mr simple||

    As of last week, each candidate had collected about $82,000 and each had qualified for public financing of $240,100. Now, because the state is prohibited from reducing the spending gap with public funds, Judge Ervin’s supporters may have to form a super PAC of their own to keep up with the unlimited spending of the conservative super PAC. This is yet another example of the devastating harm caused by Citizens United.

    Waah, the candidate we like doesn't have as much money as the other guy. This harms us greatly.

  • CampingInYourPark||

  • Marshall Gill||

    is it

    Obviously, if someone is unable to even properly capitalize their arguments are going to be so weak that there is no reason to even read anything they have to say.

    Hell, my 7 year old can capitalize.

  • Sudden||

    Really? Am I still the only one wondering where Korematsu is on this list?!?!!? Perhaps that's the most self-evident one to virtually every human being, but it seems to be the most fundamentally libertarian at the deepest level.

  • ||

    You forgot your /sarc tag.

  • Sudden||

    Holy fucking shit..... why did I remember that case completely ass backwards? I must've internalized Jackson's dissent as the majority opinion.

    I fail at life today. My apologies.

  • Pro Libertate||

    This post should be followed by the ten most libertarian dissents. There are some glorious ones.

  • Sudden||

    Yes, and should also be followed by the addition of an editing feature so that my complete and total dumbfuckery is not eternal on the cache of teh interwebz.

  • ||

    If it makes you feel any better I assumed you were doing some obscure sarcasm.

  • Sudden||

    Well, I for one am glad to be notified of my mistake. Though it may be a source of great shame and embarrassment to me, at least I won't be so stupid now to drop such a ill-informed reference in public now.

  • Sudden||

    And hopefully now I'll also learn to drop the redundant use of the word now.

    I really should have stayed in bed today.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I don't see why we can't have an edit tag. If the concern is goal post moving, make it expire once someone replies to it.

  • ||

    Sudden's shame would still be here for all to see, as he would not have realized it till after I replied.

  • Sudden||

    But if we also named Epi Supreme Commenting Forum Deitymoderator, I could just have him remove your comment and all that have emanated from it.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    And if we didn't have an indenting limit this block of text would make sense.

  • Sudden||

    E
    x
    c
    e
    p
    t

    i
    t

    w
    o
    u
    l
    d

    b
    e

    f
    o
    r
    m
    a
    t
    t
    e
    d

    l
    i
    k
    e

    t
    h
    i
    s

  • Sudden||

    Sorry, that was annoying.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Sorry, that was annoying.

    If only you could edit!

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I'm not saying it'll fix all of the errors, but it will fix many.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    For instance, the lack of an edit feature is denying us a Futurama joke!

  • JoshBlackman||

    It is also interesting to compare where libertarians overlap with conservative and liberal favorites. It is pretty evenly split. Venn Diagram: http://joshblackman.com/blog/2.....-opinions/

  • DegFooo||

    Sometimes you jsut gotta throw them hands up in the air and shout, Whos your Daddy!

    www.Anon-Got.tk

  • terrymac||

    Pierce v. Society of Sisters not only protected the right of parents to send children to private schools, but it led to protecting the right of home education as well - a right now enjoyed by about 4 million American children.

  • TheInvisibleHand||

    Judge James Clark McReynolds is cited twice is this article. I looked him up on Wikipedia, and he would likely be the most libertarian Supreme Court Justice. He voted to stike down various New Deal legislation, even the Social Security Act.

    Here is the wikipedia article on him:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.....McReynolds

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement