Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Libertarians for Alito
To my dismay, giddy Christian activists are in Seventh Heaven over the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Troy Newman of the pro-life Operation Rescue exults, "We are trusting that we are now on the fast-track to derailing Roe v. Wade as the law of the land." Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition, declares, "President Bush has hit a homerun with this nomination." Don Swarthout, president of Christians Reviving America's Values, adds, "We need someone on the US Supreme Court who stands for the true principles of America and applies them with common sense. In fact, I think most of America would agree that it is time for our nation to stop our tolerance for diversity programs that are detrimental to our nation."
But the libertarians over at the Competitive Enterprise Institute also see some reason to cheer:
Alito has issued landmark decisions upholding the free speech rights and freedom of association of business trade associations (Pfizer v. Giles (1995) and commercial free-speech rights (Pitt News v. Pappert (2004). His rulings have also shown a grasp of the regulatory and legal challenges facing business and an appreciation of the value of free markets.
|10.31.05 @ 1:59PM|#
More from Don Swarthout, President of Christians Reviving
America's Values:
"Most Americans are tired of our lackadaisical attitude toward the
principles upon which our nation was founded and they are tired of
the Dr. Spock approach we seemingly use to make various decisions.
We seem to have an illogical view of freedom today. Some people say
that freedom means no rules, no responsibility.
"Freedom really means living within a set of rules that most people
agree upon. Freedom comes with responsibility. You have to accept
the consequences of your actions. That is what true freedom is all
about.
"We need to decide whether to keep believing that criminals,
terrorists, enemy combatants and illegal aliens have more rights
than law abiding citizens who love and respect the American way of
life.
"This nominee will cause some tough moments during the confirmation
process. Senator Chuck Schumer said this nominee will cause
division rather than bring our nation together. The nation is
already divided and it is time for the conservatives to win one for
the Gipper. Thank you President Bush, for a great choice on this
one."
|10.31.05 @ 2:01PM|#
The CEI certainly tries to load a crapload of cookies onto your computer. Assholes.
|10.31.05 @ 2:04PM|#
"Freedom really means living within a set of rules that most
people agree upon..."
In other words, you're only "free" to do what the
government--preferably run by Medieval mentalities in the name of a
non-existant supernatural being--tells you to do, huh?
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is Strength.
|10.31.05 @ 2:07PM|#
It's hard to say what this guy believes, but I'm getting the feeling that he's conservative in the sense of "Freedom for corporations good, presonal freedom, not so much."
|10.31.05 @ 2:20PM|#
Is this guy related to Jim Swarthout (the real estate guy in Utah with the dobermans) from Fletch?
|10.31.05 @ 2:21PM|#
It's hard to say what this guy believes, but I'm getting the
feeling that he's conservative in the sense of "Freedom for
corporations good, presonal freedom, not so much."
Comment by: Number 6 at October 31, 2005 02:07 PM
Yeah I noticed that too. Whatever happened to the libertarian view
that individuals have rights and corporations don't. Sometimes I
think there's some validity to the LPs adherence to ideological
purity when confronted with corporatist "libertarians" like
this.
|10.31.05 @ 2:29PM|#
Whatever happened to the libertarian view that individuals
have rights and corporations don't.
It's not the only libertarian view.
Sometimes I think there's some validity to the LPs adherence to
ideological purity
The only people who care about the LP are the LP. They don't define
libertarianism.
|10.31.05 @ 2:33PM|#
I don't yet have much of a sense of Alito re personal freedoms. Having looked at a couple of relevant opinions, he reaches reasonable conclusions even if they're not always my preference. I look forward to seeing more; at least he seems essentially competent and qualified, and not beholden the the Bush clan.
|10.31.05 @ 3:15PM|#
Why can't they be Christians Reviving America's Principles, instead? (Or Christians Reviving America's Values Every November?)
|10.31.05 @ 3:22PM|#
Religious right loves him. Bush thinks he's almost as good as Harriet Miers. No, I'm sure of it. I hate him.
|10.31.05 @ 3:23PM|#
Rimfax,
How about Fundamentalist Action
Group? Because suppressing personal freedoms is
the FAG way of doing things.
KipEsquire|10.31.05 @ 3:29PM|#
His ruling in Saxe v. State College Area School District is also a very pro-liberty reading of the First Amendment.
|10.31.05 @ 3:42PM|#
IMO Religious Right hated the Miers nomination because they didn't have a say in the matter. The message to GWBII seems to be: don't so much as take a crap without consulting us...
|10.31.05 @ 3:57PM|#
I think Bush learned his lesson that before making any decision, he should ask himself: 'What would Bill Kristol do?'
|10.31.05 @ 3:59PM|#
"We need to decide whether to keep believing that criminals,
terrorists, enemy combatants and illegal aliens have more rights
than law abiding citizens who love and respect the American way of
life."
Jesus! That is lame. What we are really talking about is whether or
not one religion has more "rights" than american citizens. I think
the founding fathers made that clear enough, that our government
does not favor one religion over another. A member of a popular
cult is still a cult member. Christianity is a popular, powerful
and wealthy cult; not a political party.
|10.31.05 @ 4:11PM|#
Christianity is a popular, powerful and wealthy cult; not a
political party.
Comment by: James smith at October 31, 2005 03:59 PM
Only if it excludes Catholics, who serve an established foreign
nation.
|10.31.05 @ 4:27PM|#
Eric,
I was curious myself, but I so rarely hear that adjective applied
to anything I've said that I didn't want to spoil it. :)
|10.31.05 @ 4:43PM|#
Alito is no libertarian, look at his views on the rights of the accused, search and seizure, etc. Or are corporate rights the only thing libertarians care about.
Yaron|10.31.05 @ 4:55PM|#
I don't know why it has to be explained every time, but judges are not legislators! Even the most libertarian judge in America is bound by law to uphold the Constitution and the precedents of higher courts. True, many justices ignore their obligations, finding "penumbras" and the like to show that the Constitution somehow coincidentally supports whatever it is they believe. But they are not there to overturn bad law.
|10.31.05 @ 5:00PM|#
Christianity is a popular, powerful and wealthy cult; not a
political party.
Comment by: James smith at October 31, 2005 03:59 PM
Only if it excludes Catholics, who serve an established foreign
nation.
Have a care, heathen! When our Pope's divisions come pouring at
last over your pitifully defended borders, you shall be among the
first to be put up against the wall.
We won't shoot you, of course, because His Holiness is against the
Culture of Death. But it's a cold, uncomfortable
wall.
And you'll be forced to say a Rosary or something.
The Vatican shall be victorious! The time is nearly at hand! Even
now our Luxwaffe's mighty dove-shaped aircraft fill the skies!
|10.31.05 @ 5:04PM|#
Eh, Catholicism is a dying religion. I left it a long time ago. Besides, the Founding Fathers were deists, with no love either for the Papacy or Anglicanism.
MP|10.31.05 @ 5:11PM|#
True, many justices ignore their obligations, finding
"penumbras" and the like to show that the Constitution somehow
coincidentally supports whatever it is they believe.
True, many commentors ignore the Ninth amendment and the broad
discretion it grants to judges in striking down laws.
|10.31.05 @ 5:11PM|#
Well, whatdya know, we're all libertarians!
So in other words, if you don't think corporations are evil and
must be destroyed, you aren't a libertarian.
Apparently, I've been giving you too much credit.
|10.31.05 @ 5:17PM|#
I have a feeling that Alito likes to cozy up next to the social conservatives. Any nominee that is too close to the social conservatives I do not support or even trust. Some these so-called �strict constitutional judges� (as the Republicans like to call them) that the Republicans like to nominate, legislate from the bench just like a liberal judge. The Republican Party used to be my backup party (with the LP being my primary party), but now I see myself disagreeing with the Republican platform more and more as time passes.
|10.31.05 @ 5:22PM|#
metalgrid-
Exactly! Every party believes that people should be left alone to
do whatever they want as long as they aren't doing anything bad. So
they're all libertarians of a sort!
Defining "bad" is where the problem is...
|10.31.05 @ 5:36PM|#
SPD,
I believe Voltaire said similar things, and he died long before the
Fathers founded anything, did he not?
People have been leaving the Catholic Church in droves for
centuries. tbh, I'm glad at this development; the Church's loss of
all its temporal power, along with most of the dead weight of
"cultural Catholics", is the best of all possible worlds. The
ossified bureaucracy that made the abuse scandals possible is
slowly fading away as the Church transforms into a lean mean
evangelizing machine.
|10.31.05 @ 5:43PM|#
crimethink,
You lost me on the first sentence, but please bear with me.
If Catholics come evangelizing at my door they're getting an
ass-full of rock salt. Nah, too violent. I'll just hand them a
couple of Jack Chick pamphlets instead.
|10.31.05 @ 5:57PM|#
crimethink,
Voltaire's Letters... (by itself out of his entire ouvre)
has more wisdom, intelligence, etc. in it than all of writings of
every Catholic over the entire Church's history.
Voltaire died in 1778. Don't they teach you people squat these
days?
As to what people believe, well, it seems that a majority of the
people are always going to believe in foolish things like gods, the
Virgin Mary in the fog of a window, ghosts, alien abductions, etc.
Which is fine. I have a live and let live policy. Of course that
assumes you heed the sign that says "No Solicitors Motherfucker!"
:)
nmg|10.31.05 @ 6:00PM|#
"True, many commentors ignore the Ninth amendment and the broad
discretion it grants to judges in striking down laws."
I sure wish the court would discover that there's a 9th amendment.
It would be a nightmare for the left.
nmg
|10.31.05 @ 6:21PM|#
Hakluyt,
As I recall, the Founding Fathers are those responsible for the
Constitution, which was not written until 1787, nine years after
Voltaire's death.
nmg,
...and a nightmare for the right as well, depending upon the
issue.
Larry A|10.31.05 @ 6:35PM|#
I sure wish the court would discover that there's a 9th
amendment. It would be a nightmare for the left.
Really?
- You have a right to medical care so the government needs to provide it.
- You have a right to decent housing so we'll tear down your blighted neighborhood and provide apartments.
- You have a right to safe neighborhoods so we'll ban guns.
- You have a right to surf the Internet without seeing objectionable material, so...
Be careful what you wish for.
Viking Moose (aka drf)|10.31.05 @ 7:05PM|#
snake - good call.
scrub brush land for everyone!
(but this is a hep crowd - fletch is, like, the libertarian bible.
you celebrate the guy's entire collection, or something like
that)
|10.31.05 @ 7:42PM|#
And best of all, we all have a right to limit the stupidity we encounter by banning Larry A from the Internet!
jimmy|10.31.05 @ 8:33PM|#
i'm so confused.
i thought the left LOVED the 9th A. it was the basis for griswold
and roe, after all, and for bill douglas's "penumbras and
emanations." they rely on it every time they want some new
unenumerated "right" that the rest of us have to pay for.
i also never heard of libertarians believing corporations have no
rights. where did that one come from? we can't have people forming
business entities for the purpose of making profits any more? oh
yeah, maybe it has something to do with that wacko-paranoid thing
about corporations being evil cuz they are "chartered" by the govt.
yeah, screw those corporations, and anyone else who has to obtain a
govt license to drive or to practice a profession.
oh wait, this is hit & run i'm reading. factual accuracy is
optional.
|10.31.05 @ 9:04PM|#
"screw those corporations, and anyone else who has to obtain a
govt license to drive or to practice a profession"
Factual accuracy may be optional, but understanding the distinction
between a corporate charter and a gov't license to practice a
profession is mandatory if we're intelligently talking about the
kind of distinctions a judge is likely to face.
|10.31.05 @ 9:27PM|#
Eric,
Next time you brush up on your libertarian credentials, make sure
to read the part about concentrations of corporate power and the
seperation between government and economy so it doesn't result in
the current climate of corporate cronyism which is the antithesis
of a free-market system.
|10.31.05 @ 9:32PM|#
crimethink,
No, the term "Founding Fathers" refers to everyone from start of
the Revolution to 1789, especially those who signed the Dec. of
Independence and the Constitution.
Jason Sonenshein|10.31.05 @ 9:33PM|#
Talk
Left points to this summary of Judge Alito's legal career from
the Legal
Intelligencer:
After a clerkship with 3rd Circuit Judge Leonard I. Garth, Alito worked as a front-line federal prosecutor in New Jersey for four years. But soon after President Ronald Reagan was elected, Alito joined the Office of the Solicitor General, staying for four years and helping to decide what position the administration would take in cases up for review by the Supreme Court.
That was followed by a three-year stint at Main Justice as a deputy assistant attorney general. In 1987, at the age of 37, Alito was appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, a post he held until he was tapped in 1990 by the first President Bush to join the 3rd Circuit.
Judge Alito's only client has been the government. That tells me he probably isn't going to be very libertarian.
|10.31.05 @ 10:06PM|#
Hoo boy, here we go again.
Considering that this gang once had an interminable and
inconclusive discussion of when "the 'Sixties" were -- one guy
naively assumed it was 1960-1970, while another maintained it was
"the cultural period" running from 1965-1975, actual dates be
damned -- we're never going to figure out when "the Founding
Fathers" were around.
PS: Hey, Call Me Snake is back!
|10.31.05 @ 10:33PM|#
1960 is the last year of the '50s, 1961 is the beginning of the decade. Happy now, Stevo?
|10.31.05 @ 10:34PM|#
The Founding Fathers were people of super-human powers. They
wrote a document so awesome, so totally rad, that it means exactly
what the reader wants it to mean! The Constitution clearly empowers
Congress to do good things and bars the Congress, as well as state
and local authorities, from doing bad things. And if there's ever
an ambiguity, the will of these Founders can be divined by a good
judge. What's a good judge? A judge whose interpretation of "good
things" and "bad things" matches your own!
How did the Founders accomplish this miraculous task of creating
such a versatile document? By using their super powers to alter the
fabric of space-time and create altnerate realities for Americans
of every disposition. We all study the Constitution in our own
realities, and then come together in this reality to hash it all
out.
OK, seriously, I realize that there is in fact more to the
Constitution than just reading whatever you want into it. But
people who insist that the whole thing is perfectly simple and
unambiguous scare me just as much as those who insist that it can
only be understood by consulting Sandra Day O'Connor's
entrails.
I realize that there will always be ambiguities, so in my ideal
world, SCOTUS Justices would have Constitutional philosophies that
meet 3 simple criteria:
1) Their interpretation is informed by history and as respectful of
precedent as possible, provided that they don't violate the next
two criteria.
2) Their interpretation doesn't use a few passages as blank checks
to render the rest of the document meaningless.
3) When in doubt, defer to state and local authorities over federal
authorities, and the rights of the people over the powers of public
officials at any level.
These criteria still leave plenty of room for interpretation, but
they should also serve as anchors.
|11.1.05 @ 12:06AM|#
Just wondering, but what's it going to take to get people to stop sniveling about how I never expected to see action X out of a bunch of Libertarians? I mean, how much arrogance do you have to possess before you can proclaim yourself the Supreme Arbiter of Libertarian Purity? And, more important for my purposes, how long does it take for that kind of self-absorption to reach critical mass and create a black hole? Because some of y'all have got to be pushing it, and I'd like to keep a decent buffer for when it happens.
taktix|11.1.05 @ 12:29AM|#
By the way, I was the Associtate News Editor of the Pitt News
during the Pitt News v. Pappert case. Since they would not let us
run booze ads, we ran a free listing of drink specials every
day.
Take that, gub'ment!
|11.1.05 @ 8:13AM|#
Shem,
Not only that, but such people are assuming that everyone here is a
libertarian. Thankfully, that is not true -- the last thing anyone
needs is yet another echo chamber blog.
|11.1.05 @ 8:53AM|#
Stevo Darkly --
You've got it all wrong, man. The Sixties aren't something you can
mark out and define in time and space. The Sixties permeate all
existence, making it groovy and cool-like. Open up your mind, man.
~~~~~
|11.1.05 @ 9:03AM|#
Twba,
Not true. The "xx00s" partition of centuries is not identical to
the "xx-th century" partition. For instance, 1899 is in the 19th
century and the 1800s; however, 1900 is in the 1900s despite also
being the last year of the 19th century.
Likewise, 1960 was the last year of the sixth decade of the 20th
century, but also in the 1960s.
Of course, all these schemes are artificial and of limited
usefulness, since a new decade, century, and milennium begin every
second.
nmg|11.1.05 @ 10:42AM|#
"Really?
* You have a right to medical care so the government needs to
provide it.
* You have a right to decent housing so we'll tear down your
blighted neighborhood and provide apartments.
* You have a right to safe neighborhoods so we'll ban guns.
* You have a right to surf the Internet without seeing
objectionable material, so...
Be careful what you wish for."
It's true that the word "right" can be twisted to mean something
different. But abjuring ALL unnamed rights in the fear that a court
might start handing out benefits and call them rights is going to
far.
Realistically, the 9th Amendment should be able to cover your right
to be free from all kinds of government intrustions that currently
exist, and most of those would infuriate the left because many stem
from a right to freedom of contract.
A truly expansive reading of the 9th would actually STRIKE DOWN all
the ridiculous benefits and entitlement that are being given
out.
nmg
dhex|11.1.05 @ 11:33AM|#
"The ossified bureaucracy that made the abuse scandals possible
is slowly fading away as the Church transforms into a lean mean
evangelizing machine."
oh man, that was funny.
dude, that ossified bureaucracy holds more land in new york city
than anyone else. that ossified bureaucracy is so fucking rich that
it boggles nyu's mind.
i don't see how removing some of their constituency, some of whom
have been horrified beyond horrors due to the decades of abuse
scandals and slush funds, is going to change their fundamental
facts as an organization.
|11.1.05 @ 2:01PM|#
Next time you brush up on your libertarian
credentials
My credentials are fine. Try to keep in mind that you and the LP
aren't issuers of libertarian credentials.
make sure to read the part about concentrations of corporate
power and the seperation between government and economy so it
doesn't result in the current climate of corporate cronyism which
is the antithesis of a free-market system.
I'm guessing that you really think that's relevant to anything I've
said. Ah, well. Follow your bliss, man.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245