Should Libertarians Vote Romney to Prevent Obama from Packing the Supreme Court?

Writing at Point of Law, Ted Frank argues that libertarians should act like single issue voters this November and cast their ballots for Republican Mitt Romney solely in order to prevent President Barack Obama from making any more appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here’s the heart of Frank’s case:

Justices Kennedy and Scalia are in their late 70s, and both are the critical fifth vote on tremendously important libertarian principles:

*There are four justices on the Supreme Court ready to hold that the First Amendment does not bar Congress from regulating political speech against incumbents.

*There are four justices on the Supreme Court ready to hold that the Second Amendment does not create any individual rights against the government.

*There are four justices on the Supreme Court ready to hold that the Commerce Clause creates no constraint on Congress's regulatory powers.

*There are likely at least four justices on the Supreme Court ready to hold that the government can choose to discriminate on the basis of race if "diversity" is at issue.

These are strong points. On the other hand, as I argued back in August, Romney’s selection of former federal appeals court Judge Robert Bork to head up his campaign’s judicial advisory committee doesn’t exactly bode well from a libertarian legal perspective. Bork represents the era of conservative legal thought where judicial deference to the will of elected majorities was the primary concern, a position that does not line up with the vigorous judicial protection of individual rights spelled out in Frank’s post.

Frank is not persuaded by that concern, however, arguing that “Bork is a figurehead” who “is not going to be deeply involved in policy-making or judicial selection.” Maybe so. But keep in mind that Romney’s campaign website still lists Chief Justice John Roberts as an example of the sort of justice that Romney will nominate. While it’s true that Roberts has cast votes in favor of gun rights and free speech, his controversial majority decision upholding Obamacare is precisely the sort of judicial deference to lawmakers that Bork has long championed.

As I’ve noted before, the conservative legal movement has a longstanding division over the issue of judicial restraint, with libertarian legal scholars and activists favoring a far more aggressive use of judicial power in defense of individual rights than Borkian conservatives do. By pointing would-be voters towards the examples of Bork and Roberts, the Romney campaign has not signaled much sympathy for the libertarian legal position.

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.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's one of the more compelling arguments for preferring Romney, leaving aside the other options not named Obama for a moment. I doubt he's appointing Janice Rogers Brown or anyone like that, but a left-statist court at this stage would be very bad indeed.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Though the Roberts remark hurts my stomach. It's a tax!

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Its a Trap!

  • Ice Nine||

    You're just a TEAM idiot. Everyone here knows there is no difference between them.

  • Lisa||

    fyi, the "TEAM" thing doesn't really help your case against people who don't think that writing the word in all caps is an argument in and of itself.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Exactly what I'd expect a TEAM sockpuppet to say or something.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Crap, busted again!

    I do think Romney is (probably) marginally better, mostly because Obama is so bad in so many ways, but I don't feel that a marginal improvement can solve the problems here this late in the day. Which is why I think voting for Johnson is best.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Did you factor in the yummy delicious tears of leftists? That is honestly competing for my biggest factor right now.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's another material difference.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    There will also be some fun riots to watch on TV for those of you in the burbs.
    As for me, I will unfortunately be in one of the rioting neighborhoods.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Luckily my AK holds 30 votes.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Does it have 30 valid state IDs?

  • Raven Nation||

    Yeah, this is a troubling idea. Especially if the opinion polls hold for Obama all the way up until the election. You think there might be some "we were robbed" riots taking place if Romney wins in contradiction of the polls?

  • Spoonman.||

    I really don't think there will be riots. I also think Obama will win, but I don't think there would be riots if he lost.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    There might be riots over the high ammo prices if BO wins.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    But we can have Tulpa's yummy tears right now! What's the discount rate on schadenfreude?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    So you're not even going to try because it might not work?

    What would Vince Lombardi say?

  • Pro Libertate||

    He'd say vote for Gary Johnson, the only non-statist fuck?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Even Vince Lombardi would concede that was impossible.

  • robc||

    Voting for him is impossible?

  • Pro Libertate||

    So what? I'm not trying to vote for the winner, I'm voting for who best reflects my politics. It's not like Romney is a Pete DuPont or Jack Kemp or any other fiscally sane Republican. You know that as well as I do.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    If you're in a battle against Nazis, and there's one unarmed guy on the enemy lines holding a sign full of horrible bigoted comments, and another guy who probably doesn't believe any of it but was just drafted, but he's manning a machine gun, which one do you shoot first?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'd should the guy with the sign, because anyone who shows up on a battlefield unarmed has enough balls or mojo to make them a serious threat.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    *shoot

  • Tulpa Doom||

    What if he knew that you would think that and is sacrificing himself for the machine gun guy?

  • Calidissident||

    And Tulpa continues to show off his terrible analogy skills

  • nicole||

    Um...doesn't that make Romney the guy with the machine gun? And Johnson the one with the sign? (Or is it supposed to be a Romney vs. Obama analogy?)

    I am confuse.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Nobody is anybody. It's an analogy.

    Shooting the machine gun guy is voting for Romney, shooting the propaganda guy is voting for Johnson. Shooting yourself is voting for Obama.

  • Trespassers W||

    If you're in a battle against Nazis... which one do you shoot first?

    You're the worst analogy ever.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    You're in the Ukraine in 1939. Do you fight for Hitler or Stalin?

  • R C Dean||

    I'm not trying to vote for the winner, I'm voting for who best reflects my politics.

    This is why voting for a third party is not a wasted vote. A vote is your expression of which candidate you want to win, not your prediction of which candidate will likely win.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    As stated above, I consider the vote to be a weapon to be tactically wielded for liberty.

    If I were trying to predict the winner I would vote BO.

  • Mike M.||

    What would Vince Lombardi say?

    Probably something like "What the hell is going on out here??"

  • Pro Libertate||

    "What, you can't hit receivers or quarterbacks anymore? Fuck this, I'm switching to hockey."

  • Robert||

    Switch to the Warrior Football Club, were we can still hit anybody! http://bronxwarriorsfootball.org

  • Drake||

    Help, me! I'm all rotted!

  • T||

    And how do I get out of this box?

  • JW||

    What would Vince Lombardi say?

    I'd rather know what Gunnery Sergean Hartman would say.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "Who said that?! Who the fuck said that?! Who is the communist cock sucking twinkle toes who just signed his own death warrant?!"

  • JW||

    You read my mind, good sir.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    I don't think so. I think a left-statist judge would just provide more acceleration.

    While a right-statist judge would maintain the current rate.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Something like that. To be fair, justices can be unpredictable. Thomas, for instance, is far more libertarian (though miles away from being "libertarian") than I ever expected. At least on some issues.

  • ||

    The Supremes are all statists. This is a bullshit TEAM asshole argument to get you to vote TEAM. If you fall for it, you're an idiot. Now wait for the HitUndRunpublican contingent to come in here screaming, as always.

    Remember, ProL, you HAVE to vote TEAM RED to stop TEAM BLUE! Because they're super different! Really!

  • Tulpa Doom||

    You're the one screaming and calling people names, Epi.

  • Tman||

    I have to say I'm getting tired of the "YOU ARE ALL SHEEPLE TEAM HACKS" argument.

    Dafuq else are we supposed to do? GJ isn't going to win. He can't even poll in double digits in a single state in the country. I agree with the vast majority of what he says but either very few people in the country agree as well (which I don't believe) or he simply hasn't convinced enough people that they agree with him (more likely).

    Either way you're on a fucking team one way or the other, be it TEAM BLUE/RED or TEAM ANARCHY/INDEPENDENT.

    Enough with calling people sheeple because they are trying to figure out the best thing to do in these situations.

  • robc||

    GJ isn't going to win

    Who the fuck cares?

    Obama cant win KY but 40% of this state is still gonna vote for him. And you know what, if Obama best represents their views, then that is the right thing for them to do. Should they vote for Romney so they can be voting for a "winner"?

    Same applies for me. Romney is gonna win my state by 15-20 points. Johnson is gonna finish 3rd or maybe 4th. So fucking what? He best represents me so Im gonna vote for him.

  • Tman||

    I have no problem with whoever you decide to vote for. But I'm sick of people being called TEAM HACKS because they think they would be better off voting for Romney.

    I live in Tennessee, which will most likely give all of the electoral to Romney. However, I live in Davidson county which will probably go for Obama, which won't matter once the other counties are counted. I could make the same argument that you are and vote for GJ since it won't really matter, but I think that Obama really really needs to lose of things are going to get drastically worse in the next four years. Thus I support those who would use their vote for Romney for those reasons, regardless of how effective the individual vote is.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I guess it depends how you see your vote. I see my vote as a tactical weapon wielded against the authoritarians. You see yours as a statement of belief.

    I won't begrudge you your POV but you have to be up front about it. As far as I'm concerned, praise the Lord and pass the ammo.

  • The Hammer||

    You see voting for an authoritarian as a tactical weapon wielded against authoritarians?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    If it reduces the level of authoritarianism, yes.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Here's where I am: Electing Romney simply will not roll back the state in any serious way. He may try to take the foot off the gas some as we head for the cliff--maybe--but that's not going to stop us from heading to the edge at high speed.

    It's time libertarians made their voices heard, rather than disappearing yet again into a chorus of statists. That's what we do when we vote major party, with criminally few exceptions.

    Frankly, if Johnson could get 10% of the vote, I think that would do more for the future of liberty in this country that any other result.

  • ||

    +10 The republican party will never nominate anyone worth having so long as they can count on libertarians and tea partiers to continue to rubber stamp statism.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I'm not rubber stamping statism. If it were Gingrich or Santorum running I'd probably vote for Johnson.

    Aside from Paul, Romney was the best GOP candidate for liberty this time around.

  • ||

    I'll agree that Gingrich and Santorum are more offensive than Romney. But the way I see it, Obama's and Romney's only difference is the size of the hole they want to drill in the bottom of the ship. I'm unconvinced that having either of those lunatics in charge is a good idea.

  • Rasilio||

    No chance Romney takes his foot off the gas, he'll just steer for a slightly different point on the Cliff and tell us there is a bridge "over there"

  • Zeb||

    Maybe it's that bridge to the 21st century that Clinton kept talking about.

  • Robert||

    He may try to take the foot off the gas some as we head for the cliff--maybe--but that's not going to stop us from heading to the edge at high speed.


    Medical treatment doesn't make you immortal either, but most people want it to postpone death.

  • $park¥||

    I see my vote as a tactical weapon wielded against the authoritarians. You see yours as a statement of belief.

    In other words, neither of you see your vote for what it really is. A quiet whimper in the dark that nobody will hear or care about.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I prefer to think of it as a silent obscene gesture to Washington DC.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Zeno's Paradox has taught you badly.

  • 0073735963||

    "I see my vote as a tactical weapon wielded against the authoritarians."

    So do I, and since both sides are authoritarian, and I think the establishment of a viable third party is the best way to defeat authoritarians, I'm voting third party.

  • Spoonman.||

    Tulpa, you know as well as I do that PA is going Obama no matter what. So you might as well join me in voting for Johnson.

  • Zeb||

    I see my vote as a tactical weapon wielded against the authoritarians.

    A tactical weapon with the effectiveness of a pea shooter against an aircraft carrier.

  • ||

    I guess it depends how you see your vote. I see my vote as a tactical weapon wielded against the authoritarians. You see yours as a statement of belief.

    My vote for Johnson is the only tactical approach. Your vote for Romney is a waste if not out right harmful to libertarianism.

    So long as wafflers like you continue to vote for candidates like Romney there will never be any incentive for them to lean for the libertarian vote.

    You may as well be a core Republican if your vote can be counted on by any crappy Republican nominee so long as there is a Democrat running.

    Anyway why don't you bring up abortion again so you can avoid this obvious truth.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    While I sympathize greatly with the "they're all the same same argument", it's reminding me of the Goths I've known complaining about how everybody else is just soooo establishment.

  • Zeb||

    You are right that voting for Romney doesn't necessarily make you a team hack. But I still say it is dumb, unless you think he really is the best candidate. I just get annoyed at people thinking that their vote matters. Just vote for who you think is best. If you keep voting for Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich, then things definitely won't change significantly.

  • JW||

    Why the fuck is anyone even voting? There is no positive marginal utility in anyone here casting a vote, so why bother?

    I know that I will get greater utility out of drinking and playing Borderlands 2 on election day, which is precisely what I will be doing.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Zeno's Paradox.

  • $park¥||

    You keep saying that. I'm not sure why but I suppose it means something to you.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    'That phrase you keep using, I do not think it means what you think it does.'

  • ||

    There is no positive marginal utility in anyone here casting a vote, so why bother?

    A vote for Johnson has greater utility then any other vote.

    All we need is the spread between the two candidates then it can be said we affected the outcome. The result being that any future candidates (of both parties) will have to listen to us in order to win.

    Anyway back to Utility. There is a far smaller group needed to get the 1 to 4% spread then to win.

    Note: after Nader was a spoiler the dems veered left. After Perot was the spoiler Clinton and the Republicans became super deficit hawks.

    You do not need many to change things...you just need to be part of the few that actually count.

  • ||

    He can't even poll in double digits in a single state in the country.

    He's consistently polled double digits in New Mexico.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I meant left-statist as opposed to right-statist.

    There are total bullshit arguments of distinction--in fact, a majority of the arguments about how Romney is supposed to be radically different (as opposed to rhetorically different) strike me as bogus--but there are a few legitimate ones. I think this is one, though again, I don't expect a great nominee from Romney. The other distinction is that he will be pro-polygamy.

  • Raven Nation||

    Hmm, good point. Is anyone polling the pro-polygamy vote?

  • Pro Libertate||

    The key factor in the 2012 election.

  • ||

    It's one of the more compelling arguments for preferring Romney--

    To me it's the only compelling argument for voting for Romney. But not compelling enough - I'm still voting for Gary Johnson.

    Or writing in Ron Paul, I haven't decided yet.

  • Alex||

    To which slate of electors would your write-in apply?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    GJ isn't winning any electors either, so it doesn't matter.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm still voting Johnson, and I do think the Paulites (I voted for him in the primary) should do so, too, as it's the only way to concentrate the libertarian vote.

    That said, being aware that Johnson's likelihood of winning is miniscule, I suppose I'm hoping for a Romney win because (1) Obama and his fanboys are so godawful, (2) might get some small steps towards fiscal reform, though I doubt it, (3) better nominees and probably less corruption, (4) schadenfreude, and (5) Mormonmania!

  • robc||

    Speaking of #5, has anyone met an asshole Mormon? Im sure they exist, but Ive never met one.

  • Pro Libertate||

    No. I've met some odd ones, though.

  • robc||

    Odd yes. But asshole, no.

  • SugarFree||

    I've met an asshole Mormon, but he was only an asshole to women.

  • SKR||

    I've met precisely one. But he was an L.A. mormon.

  • Pro Libertate||

    L.A. Mormon, L.A. Mormon.
    L.A. Mormon, fundie asshole dude.
    L.A. Mormon, fundie asshole dude.
    L.A. Mormon, fundie asshole dude.
    Drive through your suburbs
    Alter your views, alter your view, yeah.
    Alter your view-view views,
    Alter your views, oh, yeah.

  • Xenocles||

    I had one on my boat, but he also drank so I'm not sure what sort of Mormon he was.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Harry Reid? You evilmonger you.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    So you hope Romney wins but you're voting for Johnson?

    That makes no sense. Hope with your hands, not with your mind.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Dude, I googled that and came up with nothing. I have a pearl of wisdom quote now, yeah!

  • T||

    "Hope with your hands, not with your mind."

    What is that even supposed to mean? Now I know why you think you're a libertarian: you're fucking stoned most of the time. Put down the bong.

  • $park¥||

    Is that what passes for wisdom these days?

  • 0073735963||

    "Dude, I googled that and came up with nothing. "

    That's not an accident.

  • JW||

    Dude, I googled that and came up with nothing.

    Gosh, what could be the reason behind that?

  • Pro Libertate||

    I don't hope Romney wins. I hope Johnson wins.

  • robc||

    Im hoping for the weird electoral miracle and Paul wins. But Im voting for Johnson.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Best to vote GJ, any Ron Paul write-ins will be interpreted as "Oh look, Luap Nor, the Ronulan Commander's cultists are so cute". A strong Libertarian showing cannot be quite so easily dismissed. Of course, listen to me, I vote in IL - ha!

  • Trespassers W||

    This is Trespassers W and I approve this message.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    This, and the media waking up and actually reporting on civil liberty abuses by the Pres., are the two biggest reasons for voting for Romney.

    Though at this point it's just playing prevent defense anyway.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    the media waking up and actually reporting on civil liberty abuses by the Pres., are the two biggest reasons for voting for Romney.

    Put journalists back to work: Vote for Romney!

  • deified||

    GWB was so weird and erratic that I really felt like it was vaguely possible that he could've appointed a Janice Rodgers Brown.

    Black female libertarian? I am willing to undergo any sort of weird sci-fi uterine inmplant just so I could have her babeez.

  • Drake||

    Oh no, not again!

  • Alex||

    Until we get five with the cojones to overturn Wickard, we're fucked regardless. Better to bring the end sooner rather than later.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Wickard isn't the only bad precedent which Obama's justices would shore up.

  • Alex||

    Wickard isn't the only bad precedent which Romney's justices would shore up.

    Let's not pretend that the expansive reading of the Commerce Clause is desired only by one TEAM and not the other. Scalia and Raich, anyone?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Nobody took my bait, I see.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Okay, why not? There is a right to privacy in the constitution. It's pretty clear.

    That said, justifying abortion by a "right to privacy" is idiotic. Either the fetus is a group of cells with no more rights than a lump of clay, or it's a human, with all attendant rights. That's the issue the Court punted on.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    The right to privacy is no more clearly present in the ninth amendment than a right to free health care, affordable housing, or free beanie babies.

  • Zeb||

    For fuck's sake, dude, give it a rest.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    See - *that* was the kind of response I was going for.

  • Zeb||

    I aim to please.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    So because MR is unlikely to fill the court with torchbearers of freedom, we should stand idly by while BO "Releases the Kagans" into Kennedy, Scalia, and possibly Thomas' seats on the bench.

    OK, typical mealy mouthed 2012 Reason article.

  • kinnath||

    As long as you bring it up, it doesn't matter whether the court is packed with left-statists or right-statists. It only matters if Romney will nominate people as stupid as Kagan to the court.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    TBH, he would probably nominate Harriet Myers "moderate" executive bootlicking types to the court if he had his way, but he knows the right would abandon him if he doesn't nominate a true conservative.

  • ||

    That sheriff who wanted to send IRS agents to prison for trespassing, whatever his name was -- put him on the Court. And Paul. And Napolitano.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    That The Romniac isn't projected to win this election with ease shows that HE HAS ALREADY BEEN ABANDONED.

    This election shows how incredibly stupid Team RED is. With Obama's record, they had this election wrapped up in a little bow; all they had to do was nominate someone who isn't a complete asshole, and they fucking failed miserably. Fuck Team RED until they get their fucking heads out of their statist asses.

    If there is but one positive about this election (assuming Romney loses), it's that it just might force Team RED to re-evaluate their party. If they can't beat someone who's been as horrendous as Obama (with unemployment still in the 8s, the economy in the shitter, etc etc), they'll have to engage in a debate as to how they can do things differently so that they can win.

    The number one thing they can do is to evict all of the holy roller bullshit from their platform, and tell the religious right to go fuck themselves. They MUST capitulate in the KULTUR WARZ if they hope to get younger voters and the swing group.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "The number one thing they can do is to evict all of the holy roller bullshit from their platform, and tell the religious right to go fuck themselves."

    Yeah, Romney's problem is he's too much of a religious conservative. Keep pounding that square peg into the round hole. Except for the weird minority of libertarians, social liberal means progessive, period, full stop. Telling the religious right to go fuck temselves is telling most libery minded people yo go fuck themselves, as most them became active in politics to the get the government to leave them be. All that you are saying is your side of the culture war is more important to you than anything else.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    So because MR is unlikely to fill the court with torchbearers of freedom, we should stand idly by while BO "Releases the Kagans" into Kennedy, Scalia, and possibly Thomas' seats on the bench.

    Do not vote for either Romney or Obama. I really do not care who sits on the SC. None of them support freedom or liberty.

  • Calidissident||

    Tulpa, why do you have such little faith in the Republican Senators ability to block a really bad supreme court nominee? Is it because you also know that they're statist fucks who don't care about liberty or the Constitution? But we should totally vote for Romney so he can appoint more people who will uphold Obamacare, marijuana laws, and strip searches of teenagers on a hunch

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Filibustering judicial nominees was very nearly banned during the Bush administration -- all it would take is a majority in the Senate and Joe Biden's OK. I wouldn't put it past BO to push for the "nuclear option" in the face of Republican obstructionism.

  • Calidissident||

    The Republicans may take the Senate this year

  • WTF||

    It's unlikely any of the 'right leaning' justices will leave in the next 4 years under an Obama presidency, so we'd just get a retiring leftist replaced by another leftisit, anyway.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    It's unlikely any of the 'right leaning' justices will leave in the next 4 years under an Obama presidency, so we'd just get a retiring leftist replaced by another leftisit, anyway.

    I agree in theory, but it's not a leftist replacing a leftist that is the problem, it's a leftist replacing a leftist for the next few decades that is the problem.

    I'm still not voting for Romney.

  • John||

    We are basically fucked on the court. About 50% of the time a right wing judge will do the right thing. The other 50% they will turn into a Roberts or a Suiter and decide being liked in Washington is the most important thing. But 100% of the time a leftist judge will remain leftist and will only get more so as they are on the court.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Suter wasn't a right wing judge, he was a turncoat.

    There is some hope that Sotomayor is becoming more of a moderate.

  • BakedPenguin||

    John, Tulpa: "Souter"

  • KDN||

    No, Tulpa's right: Suter is a complete turncoat. I can't wait for the salary cap to get trimmed so his entire team gets released.

  • Robert||

    No, I think John meant "Suiter", as in one who suits the Washington crowd.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    There is some hope that Sotomayor is becoming more of a moderate.

    She certainly has been a surprise in some cases (which is a very good thing), but on any case that is a liberal shibboleth, she will always vote in favor of more government power.

  • Zeb||

    Some of the leftists are occasionally better on some civil rights issues. So there is that. I really dread new appointments by either of them.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Frank is not persuaded by that concern, however, arguing that “Bork is a figurehead” who “is not going to be deeply involved in policy-making or judicial selection.”

    If this is true, WHAT THE FUCK IS HE DOING THERE?

    This contradicts the "managerial competence" argument.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I'd take Bork over Kagan any day. And I despise Bork.

  • PapayaSF||

    Who is more likely to recommend Supreme Court nominees sympathetic to libertarian views, at least some of the time? Bork or Valerie Jarrett?

  • Gray Ghost||

    I'd rather take Diane Wood over Kagan. At least Wood was qualified. Elections have consequences; Obama should have been able to nominate Justices with ideologies compatible with his party's. But damn it, they need to be fucking qualified first! Kagan didn't deserve her two years as Solicitor General, much less being nominated to the Supreme Court.

    And yet, she's there.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Of course the same could be said for virtually all of the justices who have spent their entire lives working for the state in one capacity or another.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Roberts' unfortunate decision on BO-Care was a minor hiccup, anyway. He didn't add any awful Commerce Clause jurisprudence to the canon. The "it's a tax" argument doesn't really set much precedent, considering the unique way in which BO-Care was written and passed. (and if the bill had a severability clause we would have been totally screwed anyway, as the only thing that could be struck would be the mandate, which is actually not the worst part)

    The good he did on Heller, McDonald, and CU far outweighs the issues with BO-Care.

  • R C Dean||

    He didn't add any awful Commerce Clause jurisprudence to the canon.

    Only because there really isn't any left to add. Right now, today, as applied its a writ to control the entire economy.

    The "it's a tax" argument doesn't really set much precedent,

    Yes and no. Its precedent that the Court can and should approve any otherwise unconstitutional financial penalty as a tax.

    And it sets a new low in judicial "deference".

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Only because there really isn't any left to add.

    Take a gander at Ginsburg et al.'s dissent. You want that to be precedent?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    ^THIS.

  • Mickey Rat||

    No, I'd rather have Kennedy et al dissent as precedent, but we don't have that because Roberts made a craven decision based on absurd reasoning because he feared the Dems reaction if he joined what should have been the majority.

  • Lyle||

    Yes.

  • Alex||

    He didn't add any awful Commerce Clause jurisprudence to the canon.

    True. Instead he added the notion that unconstitutional laws become constitutional if there could have been some hypothetical, constitutional law that Congress might have passed which had a similar effect. Yes, that's much better.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Not similar. The same.

    I don't like the ruling either, but it's hardly bad enough to throw him into the dustbin after the other huge liberty-enforcing rulings.

  • Pudgeboy||

    Roberts outed himself with the Obamacare opinion... like this really good guy down the street everyone thought was normal until we saw him being chased down the street naked, with a dirty diaper on his head... both are as intelligent as a bag of old shoes

  • Mickey Rat||

    It was stupidity on Roberts part, it was cowardice.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "not stupidity"

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Three (five? twenty?) generations of government-schooled imbeciles have had it drummed into their consciousness that there are two and only two possible choices in an American Presidential election. The number of people who would go to a barber shop to be treated for cancer (or believe space aliens walk among us) is vastly higher than the number of people who even believe a candidate can legitimately run for President as anything other than R or D.

    DOOOOOOOMED, we are.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Get your sneakers on the pavement and go door to door promoting the LP. When 30% of Americans are seriously considering voting LP, get back to me. That's the bare minimum you would need to be a factor.

    Until then, we have two parties for all practical purposes.

  • Calidissident||

    You gotta start somewhere. Why do I have to vote for the winner? My vote doesn't count any more or less. It has no chance to decide the outcome of the election, even in a close swing state. You still have not given a good explanation for this. Your reasoning relies on the belief that your vote will affect anything. It won't. You need masses of people to go along with to make any difference. Why does it matter if I'd need a million more people to join me and vote for Romney for him to win or 40 million to join me in voting for Gary Johnson? And once again, Romney's not winning PA

  • Tulpa Doom||

    BO and MR both have campaign HQs in Pittsburgh. They don't seem to share your view that PA is already a lock for BO.

    You seem to be indulging Zeno's Paradox. It is unlikely that your vote decides the election, but the analogue of Zeno's position--that the election is not decided by votes--is patently false.

  • ||

    Aren't you doing something similar? You'll vote Libertarian when the LP gets to 30%, but if everyone thinks as you do, the LP will never get to 30%.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    30% seriously consider is my threshold.

    I seriously consider voting LP every time.

  • ||

    How would you determine if that threshold were met?

  • Calidissident||

    You're doing the same thing. I have no control over how the masses vote. If a bunch of people joined me in voting for Gary Johnson, he'd be president. If a smaller bunch (but still massive in absolute terms) joined me in voting for Romney, he'd be president. Either way, I don't have control over it. The only logical choice is to vote for the candidate who I think would be the best president.

    Pennsylvania hasn't gone R since 88 and this isn't the year it's gonna change. And if the polls hold up until election day, and Obama has a 10 point lead there, I take it you'll vote for Johnson?

  • Alex||

    Tulpa keeps making the error of thinking every vote is only about choosing the winner. Statism is a hell of a drug.

  • albo||

    One what foundation does the constitution stand? It's Elena Kagans all the way down.

    *frowny face*

  • ||

    http://elections.huffingtonpos.....y-vs-obama

    The race is close enough in NC that I might vote Romney, and this is the argument that's going to swing it for me, I think.

  • Alex||

    If Romney wins, then you can't vote for a better GOP candidate in 2016.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    If Romney loses we're getting a warmongering social conservative GOP nominee in 2016. The sociocons will insist it's their turn, and they outnumber libertarian Republicans by a wide margin.

  • Spoonman.||

    If Obama wins NC, he will win by so much that it won't matter.

  • Fluffy||

    Honestly, I know "there's no difference between Romney and Obama!" but if one of them is going to get three SCOTUS nominees I know which one I'd want it to be.

    And I hate that rat bastard Romney.

    But with Romney, we get the same old ass fucking. Obama's people are likely to come up with entirely new cutting edge fuckery, like adjudicating into existence the New Property or declaring all speech that upsets people to be "crying fire in a crowded theatre".

  • Alex||

    But with Romney, we get the same old ass fucking.

    Not sure why you think that. Roberts' "if we can imagine a constitutional version of an unconstitutional law, it becomes constitutional" nonsense should be enough to disabuse you of that fallacy.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Roberts' position isn't nearly as bad as you're making it out to be. All it does is remove the possiblity of challenging a law on technical grounds. If its effect is unconstitutional Roberts' argument doesn't apply.

  • ant1sthenes||

    New cutting edge fuckery might be enough to trigger a backlash. It took FDR to get presidential term limits, etc. etc.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Great. Let's give the Dems supermajorities in both houses so that they can hasten the libertaraian rapture, or whatever.

  • albo||

    By pointing would-be voters towards the examples of Bork and Roberts, the Romney campaign has not signaled much sympathy for the libertarian legal position.

    Listen, libertarians, we got a choice between daily ass beatings with a rubber truncheon for the next four years, and just a few light whippings with a dog leash once a month. That's it. There is no other choice, and stamping our feet and whining won't change it.

    So choose well.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    kinky, now don't be gentle.

  • Zeb||

    So... Gary Johnson is the dog leash?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I'd take Bork over Kagan any day.

    Completely misses (ducks) the point. Romney apparently not only isn't going to nominate Bork, he isn't even going to listen to him. If this is the case, why would Mitt "I'm an excellent driver manager" Romney even waste a chair on the guy?

    If he isn't listening to Bork, who IS he listening to?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    My point is, even if he nominated Bork himself it wouldn't be as bad as letting BO run free with the Court. Bork isn't going to advise him to nominate anyone worse than himself, would he?

  • albo||

    And there are plenty of Elena Kagans out there already lubing up their gavels in eager anticipation of The One saying their name.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    2 words: Elizabeth Warren.
    She's getting something if Obama wins.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    She should head the BIA.

  • R C Dean||

    Warren will have a hell of a time with any confirmation hearing, based solely on the questions around her illegally practicing law.

    And, of course, if she wins in November, she will be in the Senate for the rest of her life (and probably ours, as well).

  • Gray Ghost||

    Warren will have a hell of a time with any confirmation hearing, based solely on the questions around her illegally practicing law.

    With Geithner being a tax cheat, and Holder being able to say the dog ate his memo informing him of F y F, why do we think that legal or illegal matters anymore to either the Administration or the MSM? I see her passing any confirmation hearing if the One wins.

  • Xenocles||

    The Ds so dominated the Senate at the time that it it didn't matter who was nominated. Even if the Rs don't take the Senate this time we won't see that sort of ease of confirmation again.

  • albo||

    I just felt like someone walked over my grave.

    *shivver*

  • Tulpa Doom||

    (barf)

  • nicole||

    Bork isn't going to advise him to nominate anyone worse than himself, would he?

    If it were possible, I'm sure he would, because for Bork they wouldn't be "worse," but "better."

  • R C Dean||

    I'm sure, in Bork's mind, that all candidates are by definition "worse" than his own exalted self.

  • nicole||

    That is a fair point.

  • Robert||

    Bork is just a team player, on the side of anyone who can be considered identifiably "conservative", no matter what kind of "conservative". The best piece on him was the Sledge Hammer! episode "Hammeroid". Therefore I wouldn't put any stock in his figurehead position in the Romney campaign as presaging any particular type of "conservative" over any other, just that he's supposed to appeal to "conservative" voters. The judges we wind up with could be good, bad, or mediocre, but Obama's trying like hell to make sure they're bad. So Romney, yeah.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Scalia being replaced i'd be torn about, but if I thought Kennedy was on death's door, maybe i'd be frightened enough to vote for romney (though by virtue of living in texas, my vote doesn't matter).

  • Spoonman.||

    Are you the same LIT who comments on Swamplot?

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    maybe, is he as bright and erudite?

  • Spoonman.||

    Never had any problem with him.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    then yeah, that's me

  • ||

    The question really only applies to the relatively small number of libertarians in swing states. If you're in the vast majority of states where one or the other is going to win by a large margin, there's no reason to waste your vote on Romney when it could be used to help the LP obtain/maintain future ballot access.

    But even libertarians who are in swing states shouldn't necessarily vote for Romney, since a Romney loss/second Obama term would set Rand Paul up very nicely for a viable 2016 run. If Romney/Ryan wins that dream is more or less DOA.

  • Raven Nation||

    Or the occasional swing district:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po.....wins-1-of/

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Count chickens before they're hatched much?

  • ||

    Yes, because if Romney somehow pulls off a victory, *that* will teach the GOP to respect libertarians LOL.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Making it clear that you'll never vote for a Republican less libertarian than Ron Paul is also not going to make the GOP give a shit about libertarian voters.

  • ||

    and sycophantically voting for a nominee who could not be any less libertarian will?

    I am already voting for someone who is less libertarian than Ron Paul and his name is Gary Johnson.

  • Robert||

    What makes you think Gary Johnson is less libertarian than Ron Paul?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    The fair tax BS is suspicious. They're close enough that making that decision is going to depend which faction of libertarian you are. Paleos favor RP while Cosmos favor GJ.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    if 20% of the electorate thought greg's way, methinks you'd be wrong.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Except they don't.

  • Robert||

    No, Greg83, if Obama wins, Republicans are going to think Romney was too "right wing" to be elected, and they'll look for someone farther "left" to nominate for 2016.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    the problem is right and left all exist in voters minds at the end of the statist segment of the graph. God forbid you move up the graph towards freedom rather than tug back and forth along the bottom.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    even if he nominated Bork himself it wouldn't be as bad as letting BO run free with the Court.

    And you know this how?

    Who knows, maybe His Zeroificness will get suckered by a civil libertarian Trojan Horse appointee who will actually rule against the fucking Total Security State.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Past performance is the most reliable predictor of future results.

  • Zeb||

    Sotomayor seems like she might turn out to be better than many had feared.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Yeah, I have to agree with this. I was afraid that as a former prosecutor, Sotomayor was gonna be another rubber stamp for law enforcement. I've been pleasantly suprised. While not excusing her problems on other issues, she's been the justice most pushing back on the police and prosecuters recently.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Who appointed David Souter?

  • Raven Nation||

    Bush I

  • ||

    Obama is an authoritarian asshole and deserves to be thrown out of office. And the republican strategy to get that done is to nominate...Mitt Romney. It's like they're trying to lose. Voting for that prick is just telling the republican party that you're a team player and you'll root for their side no matter how awful they are.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The opposite of Obama would've been a good choice.

  • SugarFree||

    It's the unwieldy coalition of socons, liberty-esque semi-individualist, and big business establishment types that make of the modern GOP. They had to find someone just bland enough for everyone to get behind. Romney is the plain oatmeal of candidates: no one likes it, but they can pretty much all choke it down.

  • ||

    Now that's an analogy I can sink my teeth into!

  • nicole||

    Your insults to oatmeal will not go unremembered.

  • SugarFree||

    It was a risk I was willing to take.

    Plain oatmeal, though. The microwave kind that comes as dust in a packet. Not the fancy steel cut kind.

  • nicole||

    Not the fancy steel cut kind.

    SF, you knew just what I needed to hear.

  • SugarFree||

    I make mine in a slow cooker and add dried blueberries in the last half-hour. (I make enough to have breakfast all week.)

  • nicole||

    That is a little scary.

    Because that is exactly what I do. (Not necessarily with blueberries.)

  • LTC(ret) John||

    You must be a true Scotsman to respect the oat that much!

  • Pro Libertate||

    HAGGIS-A-THON!

  • T o n y||

    He was the best candidate they had to offer.

    That should tell any thoughtful person everything he needs to know about the Republican party.

  • BC||

    And that the festering bag of shit presently occupying the Oval Office is the best on offer from Team Blue ought to tell any thoughtful person everything he needs to know about the Republican Party.

  • tarran||

    LOL

    Here we see the politics of fear. :)

    Vote for Romney! He may order your killing, but the judge he appoints to rubber-stamp his decisions might not be as much of a lickspittle as the guy Obama appoints.

  • albo||

    The perfect is the enemy of the better-than-Kagan.

  • SugarFree||

    [quietly bookmarks another thread]

  • Raston Bot||

    www.rand2020.com would make a good opthalmologist URL and he could run in '20 with it.

  • Robert||

    Is that the best you can do? Obama's appointments will be awful if he can at all help it, while there are some signs that Romney's not aiming at the best? To me that's a clear statement that Romney is preferable.

    Really that's all that I see of almost all the analysis at HyR that comes down anti-Romney. We all know now how bad Obama is, although that wasn't so obvious to all of us, myself included, in 2008. Meanwhile Romney's not great on most issues. I'll take not great over demonstrated bad, any time. And those who pine for partisan division between the executive y judicial branch have it wrong: Romneycare was a compromise with an overwhelmingly Democratic state and its legislature; he'll be a lot better from a libertarian point of view as executive with a Republican Congress.

    I see every indication that Romney as president would be better than McCain would've been, and certainly better than both Bushes were.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Apparently the Reason idea of balance in 2012 is to have the number of articles laying out BO's blatant, plain as day, horrible abuses of power equal to the number of articles making mountains out of molehills in Romney's imperfections.

  • Zeb||

    Romney is running for president, you know? They should be running as many articles critical of each candidate as they can. And I haven't seen them make any recommendations on who to vote for. This sort of criticism is very silly. It's not Reason's job to justify your vote. Or to be balanced. IT is a point of view publication and the point of view is that mainstream politics blows.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    They should set a standard for writing a critical article from a libertarian POV and then stick with it for all relevant candidates.

    If they want to nitpick Romney to death, fine. They need to nitpick BO then (and the blog will have like 100 articles a day). Otherwise they will be deemed to be aiding the BO campaign, consciously or otherwise.

  • ||

    I read it more as articles laying out BO's blatant, plain as day, horrible abuses of power equal to the number of articles laying out Romney gross political incompetence.

    i would like to say it's a mystery why Romney is behind in the polls. But it's really not.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Romney isn't a world-beating campaigner, but seriously? He's behind in the polls because (a) the media is TOTALLY in the tank for BO, in a way no media has ever been in the tank for anyone in the past, and (b) lots of people want more free shit and don't care that it's not sustainable.

  • ||

    Thanks for pointing out that Romney would have a Republican congress on his side. At least with Obama we can anticipate continued gridlock.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Thank goodness gridlock prevented the EPA from regulating CO2 emissions, BO from getting involved in 2 civil wars in his home continent, bailout funds being used for GM, and the IRS rewriting the health care law post-passage to remove the exchange loophole.

  • 0073735963||

    After the way the Paul people were treated before and at convention, the R's have a lot of balls trying to sweet talk us back in the fold.

    Let me be clear (heh), you mistreated us badly R's, and you will not get my vote, no matter how many tortured arguments you fabricate to convince me Obama is worse.

    I know he's worse. I'm quite happy to let you live with him, and every single time you cry about it, remind you how you treated us when we told you Romney wasn't the guy. You let your asshole goons run roughshod over the party, and now you get Obama. Blame yourselves.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    We all get Obama, buddy. Even those of us who thought the party establishment screwed over RP.

    And if MR loses, the establishment just has to rewrite their rulebooks with anti-RP countermeasures and wait out the TP losing momentum and they'll be back in control.

  • 0073735963||

    "We all get Obama, buddy. Even those of us who thought the party establishment screwed over RP."

    I am not a battered wife.

    You treat me like shit, you lose my vote. You pull illegal shit to stifle my voice, you absolutely lose my vote.

    Stop with your justifications, if only because they are wasted. There is no point you can post that will effectively counter the "yeah we know he got the votes but we're going to ignore that and fuck you" shit the R's did to my choice.

    Does that mean ugly consequences? Yup. I'm ready for it. Scaremongering them all the time won't sway me either.

  • tarran||

    Good on you, Mr 0073735963.

    Anybody who votes for Romney is signaling that all the Republicans have to be is slightly less freemarkety than the Democrats, and they'll still get a place at the trough.

  • PapayaSF||

    Folks, the country didn't get into the semi-socialist, bankrupt mess we're in because of the electoral success of the Socialist Party, the CPUSA, or any other left-wing party. We got here because socialists and outright Communists and their allies infiltrated the Democratic Party, and helped turn it into the anti-liberty catastrophe it is today. (Admittedly, the Democrats had some help from Republicans.)

    And in that process, the leftists often got screwed over by the Democratic Party establishment. Even Obama has screwed them over repeatedly. And yet, here we are. Fabian socialism worked in England, and it's working here. So I think the best chance libertarians and Tea Partiers have is to work within the GOP. The Tea Partiers have done quite well in the last few years, winning a number of primary races. And note that Gary Johnson didn't get to be governor by running as a Libertarian.

    Since I am in CA, my vote has no chance of mattering, so I may well vote for Johnson. But for any libertarian in a swing state, I'd advise holding their nose and voting for Mitt. The next four years are going to be hard in any case, but with Obama they are certain to be an outright disaster. And with a few more Wise Latinas on the Court, you can kiss a bunch of your Constitutional rights goodbye.

  • 0073735963||

    "So I think the best chance libertarians and Tea Partiers have is to work within the GOP. "

    We worked with you this year and you fucked us. This very year the people you claim are our best chance openly and unabashedly bent us over in full view, and got away with it. But now you want my vote?

    "with Obama they are certain to be an outright disaster"

    Ah yes, the scaremongering, well, you have only your "fuck the Paultards, let's call the cops and get their delegates harassed" GOP buddies to thank for that.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    We worked with you this year and you fucked us.

    That's not us, it's the party establishment. And frankly, RP supporters were hardly "working with" the party...they were trying to steal delegates RP couldn't win by getting people to vote for him, by exploiting technicalities in the system. Nothing morally wrong with that, it's all part of the game. But when you live by technicalities you will die by technicalities...when that happens try not to be butthurt.

  • 0073735963||

    "That's not us, it's the party establishment."

    No, it's people who want me to vote for Romney, of which you are one. You chose to get in bed with them.

    "And frankly, RP supporters were hardly "working with" the party...they were trying to steal delegates RP couldn't win by getting people to vote for him, by exploiting technicalities"

    You mean following the rules right? I like how you make it seem like following the rules is worthy of fucking us over for by your choice of terminology.

    "But when you live by technicalities you will die by technicalities"

    FUCK YOU. Calling the cops on delegates who are there legally, doing what they are supposed to do, isn't by any definition a "technicality".

    "try not to be butthurt."

    I wondered how long it would be until one of you TEAM RED assholes would make that charge.

    When I play by the rules, and you use the cops to take away my voice, I will absolutely be "butthurt", and anyone who wouldn't is a particularly craven individual.

  • PapayaSF||

    And the left worked with Obama, and got fucked in many, many ways. And yet, would the left have been better off or happier with President McCain? No way. We need more Fabian libertarians, not purists who hate compromise and want to take their marbles home.

  • BC||

    When I play by the rules, and you use the cops to take away my voice, I will absolutely be "butthurt", and anyone who wouldn't is a particularly craven individual.

    What a load of sanctimonious horseshit.

    The unstated goal of the Paul campaign from Day One was, given the improbability of winning a substantial number of delegates outright, capturing enough delegates after the fact in non-binding caucus/primary states (notwithstanding what the voters in those states actually thought they were voting for) in order to force a floor fight at the convention. It was an insurgent campaign explicitly aimed at trying to capture the nomination not through bona fide electoral appeal, but by subverting caucus and primary results via demanding extraordinary and hypertechnical compliance with "the rules."

    You are, in other words, the political equivalent of a bunch of rules-lawyering Dungeons and Dragons nerds. And now you're whining about how unfair it is that the gamemaster -- the GOP establishment -- was finally moved by your shenanigans to reassert control over his own game.

    Boo-freaking-hoo. If you're unwilling to vote for Romney, they don't vote for Romney, but spare the rest of us this steaming pile about how you made a genuine and good-faith effort to play well with others only to be given the back of the GOP's hand.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    You treat me like shit, you lose my vote. You pull illegal shit to stifle my voice, you absolutely lose my vote.

    This election is bigger than you or your understandably hurt feelings.

  • 0073735963||

    I'm sorry, is this your attempt to get me to change my mind?

    Do you actually think being an asshole to me about this is wise? Or effective? Or beneficial?

    What the fuck is wrong with you, you're trolling someone in an effort to... what exactly?

    You just keep telling me what you care about is more important than what I care about, then insulting me.

  • 0073735963||

    "And if MR loses, the establishment just has to rewrite their rulebooks with anti-RP countermeasures and wait out the TP losing momentum and they'll be back in control."

    And by the way, the same is true if MR wins.

  • ||

    And if Mike Tyson wins.

  • dj kumquat||

    bork is no ordinary appeals court judge. he was nominated for the supreme court and rejected by the senate. democrats used some former pot smoking as their excuse for blocking him.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    I thought it was his weird beard?

  • Mr. Gondo||

    Put down the bong, you are confused.

  • Mr. Gondo||

    "*There are four justices on the Supreme Court ready to hold that the Commerce Clause creates no constraint on Congress's regulatory powers."

    I count 5 with that fraudulent pig Scalia on board.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    On the other hand, it should be noted that the conservative justices have been a disaster in terms of protecting rights under the fourth and fifth ammendment, habeus corpus, etc. from the police state. So one could just as easily argue the Libertarians should vote for Obama so that Ginsburg isn't replaced with someone who will be happy to rubber stamp the security state.

    Where were all these conservative bastions of Libertarianism on Raich? Hamdi? Boumediene?

  • Zeb||

    That's about where I am at. Whoever wins, SC nominations are going to be scary.

  • ||

    One could also argue that we're just as likely to get a social-conservative statist SC nominee out of Romney as a libertarian one.
    Er probably more.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    the conservative justices have been a disaster in terms of protecting rights under the fourth and fifth ammendment

    Majority opinion in Kelo was written by John Paul Stevens. Who also dissented in Hamdi.

    BO replaced Stevens with his solicitor general who argued in court for indefinite detention.

  • ||

    Alternatively,

    "Should Conservatives Press Romney to become more of a Libertarian so that Libertarians will vote for him, so that Obama cannot pack the Supreme Court?"

  • Pro Libertate||

    He could do exactly that by throwing out some bones to the limited government types. But he's a socialist, too, or at least fears the U.S. is too socialist for him to get away with anything that even sounds libertarian.

  • ||

    he's a socialist, too, or at least fears the U.S. is too socialist for him to get away with anything that even sounds libertarian.

    Exactly. If you want an even remotely libertarian reform, you're going to have to persuade voters to be more libertarian. I don't see how voting for Mitt Romney changes that equation at all.

  • PapayaSF||

    See my long comment above about Fabian socialism.

  • 0073735963||

    Why?

    It's just more scaremongering and justifications for treating Paul supporters like shit.

  • PapayaSF||

    No, it's not. I don't want Paul supporters and other libertarians treated like shit, I just want them to compromise, get what they can, and keep pushing things in a libertarian direction.

    Just read the 1928 Socialist Party platform: it's now almost 100% current mainstream Democratic Party thought. Much of it is even unchallengeable by Republicans these days. That did not happen because of Socialist Party electoral victories.

  • ||

    It's just more "Vote for Romney because Obama is that horrible!" .

    No. Romney is going to have to try harder than that. I have standards.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Obama is really bad, and that's almost enough. Almost.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I hope your standards comfort you when the horrors of a mad duck BO second term come to the fore. At least none will be able to claim you were a cheap vote.

  • 0073735963||

    "I hope your standards comfort you"

    They will.

  • ||

    I conservatives hate Obama so much, they can damn well compromise on a few issues to get a few libertarian votes.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Compromise on what? They'll lose more moderates in any imaginable compromise, and libertarians are notoriously unreliable allies when it comes to voting.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Stormy Dragon| 10.2.12 @ 3:22PM |#

    But we can have Tulpa's yummy tears right now! What's the discount rate on schadenfreude?

    My tears won't be nearly as copious as those who stood on the sidelines because MR wasn't libertarian enough for them, only to see the horrors of a second BO term realized before their weary eyes. 11/6/2012 comes only once in eternity and you'll not get it back. Be not rash in your decisions.

  • 0073735963||

    "My tears won't be nearly as copious as those who stood on the sidelines because MR wasn't libertarian enough for them, only to see the horrors of a second BO term realized before their weary eyes."

    It's like you're not literate, that is the goal. I want BO to win. That's you get for acting like assholes to Ron Paul supporters (and supporting those who acted like assholes to Ron Paul supporters).

    You're not going to get anywhere with that.

    "11/6/2012 comes only once in eternity and you'll not get it back. "

    Yeah. Scary.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "I want BO to win."

    Your nose better hope you never become spiteful towards your face.

  • freeAgent||

    Republicans did this to themselves.

  • ||

    Whenever this comes up I'm reminded about people trying to convince me that I needed to vote Bush in 2004 because he was waiting until his safe second term to roll out a major gun rights push.

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