Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Brett Kavanaugh, Abortion, and 'Settled Law’

Don’t assume Roe v. Wade will be safe with Justice Kavanaugh.

After meeting with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Susan Collins emerged to announce that he regards the Roe v. Wade decision as "settled law." This comes as an apparent relief to the Maine Republican, who favors abortion rights. But those who hope the Court will uphold Roe would be rash to assume it would be safe with Justice Kavanaugh.

"Settled law" sounds solid, but like ice, it's a substance that can quickly turn to vapor. Roe is "settled" in the sense that it has survived for 45 years and the Court has passed up opportunities to ditch it. But being settled doesn't mean its survival is assured, under the Court of 2019 or 2029.

The pertinent question for the nominee is whether Roe is entitled to be treated as not merely a precedent, which the Court should not lightly reverse, but a "super-precedent," which the Court should not reverse, period.

All courts defer to previous decisions, adhering to them unless there is good reason not to—a concept known as stare decisis. In this vein, the justices have repeatedly preserved the core elements of Roe. In 1992, the Court said that overruling Roe would do "profound and unnecessary damage to the court's legitimacy, and to the nation's commitment to the rule of law."

In a 2000 case, Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit invoked that 1992 decision, which allowed some restrictions but affirmed "a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages."

Luttig interpreted it "to be a decision of super-stare decisis with respect to a woman's fundamental right to choose whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy"—a position, he noted, that the Supreme Court later "not merely confirmed, but reinforced." The conclusion was especially noteworthy coming from a highly respected conservative who was considered for the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush.

During John Roberts' 2005 confirmation hearings, Harvard law professor Charles Fried, who was solicitor general in the Reagan administration, testified that even though Roe was "wrongly decided," he thought it had become a "super-precedent." It underlay so many other important decisions that upending it would be "an enormous disruption."

Roberts ducked the super-precedent question. Kavanaugh is likely to follow suit. Whether he would vote to discard or hollow out the right to abortion is anyone's guess.

Most judges and scholars agree that some Supreme Court decisions are so fundamental to modern law and life that they are immune from reconsideration—such as Brown v. Board of Education, which banned segregated public schools, and the 1871 ruling that paper money is not unconstitutional. Maybe these decisions did not strictly follow the text of the Constitution or the intent of the Framers, but scrapping them would cause too much trouble to be justified.

Not everyone thinks Roe belongs in that company. University of Chicago law professor David Strauss, who defends the right to abortion it upheld, wrote in 2010 that the decision should not be treated as sacrosanct.

"Protracted opposition, even if it does not prevail, counts for something," he said, arguing that Roe "cannot be put on the same level as decisions...that were initially controversial but have now gained near-universal acceptance." Now, though, he tells me, "Appointees of presidents who made a point of attacking Roe have voted to uphold it. That kind of resilience ought to give Roe a much greater claim not to be overruled."

Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, a prominent originalist, has argued that the only decisions qualifying as super-precedents are those affirming policies that no one would challenge anyway—such as the ban on Jim Crow.

That does not apply to Roe. A test of the honesty of any approach to constitutional interpretation is whether it sometimes yields outcomes that you don't like. The late Antonin Scalia said, "If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag." But as a justice, he voted to strike down a law against flag desecration.

Roe, in my opinion, was a sensible decision enshrining a crucial right. But for its defenders to say it is beyond re-examination by the Court would be putting preference over principle.

Liberals might like to grant Roe protected status. They would bridle, though, at putting equally durable rulings that they disdain—say the 1976 decision striking down limits on campaign spending—in the same category.

If Kavanaugh joins the Court, he should feel free to ask whether the constitutional right to abortion truly deserves to be preserved. His answer should be: Yes.

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.

  • TLBD||

    Maybe reason really hates abortion and open borders and that is why they have their two biggest idiots defend them.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Disagreeing with Roe V. Wade does not automatically equal hating abortion.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    ^This. One can like the ends but hate the means.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The pertinent question for the nominee is whether Roe is entitled to be treated as not merely a precedent, which the Court should not lightly reverse, but a "super-precedent," which the Court should not reverse, period.

    Not how the SCOTUS works. Ask Korematsu v. united States.

    If its not in the constitution, its not a power of the government. The power to prevent states from regulating baby killing is not a power of the federal government [period]

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Lefties should have tried to amend the constitution to protect abortion instead of the failed ban of alcohol or to unconstitutionally force Obamacare on Americans.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    If its not in the constitution, its not a power of the government.

    Look again! It's in there!! Learn about the liberty you scorn.

    all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

    See that? Life and Liberty are BOTH unalienable -- thus precisely equal, by definition.

    Government is to protect BOTH the fetal child's right to life, AND the woman's right to liberty.
    This principle is incorporated into the Constitution with the 9th Amendment. Learn that, too.

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

    Can you list those rights, which government MUST defend?
    I didn't think so.

    This, nonsense to asset that each state may have its own definition of fundamental rights. That perversion is the states' rights proclaimed by southern racists and the KKK, their lame excuse to deny fundamental rights protected by our Constitution.

    The Lefties should have tried to amend the constitution to protect abortion

    The Authoritarian Right witlessly claims there is NO right to Liberty or Pursuit of Happiness.

    Left - Right = Zero
    9A forever

  • Nardz||

    For once, I agree with fakehihn.
    9A forever.
    Of course, 9A isn't about whatever illogical gibberish the bot spittled out above.
    9A is the right of revolt, including violent revolt.
    Progressives be warned.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Hihnpuppet

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Cowardly diversion..
    Means he lost on the issues,

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No one loses to a Hihnbot. And even if one did, it would not be decided by another Hihnbot.

    Now GTFO, amd go to hospice.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Cowardly diversion.
    Note that they REFUSE to address the issue.
    The authoritarian right -- bellows and bullies to feel manly

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Elilis Wyatt||

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

    Of course, 9A isn't about whatever illogical gibberish the bot spittled out above.

    That's a precise quote.

    9A is the right of revolt, including violent revolt.

    It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide.

    Progressives be warned.

    I posted it to rebut a blatantly unconstitutional claim from the far right.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

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

    Of course, 9A isn't about whatever illogical gibberish the bot spittled out above.

    That's a precise quote.

    9A is the right of revolt, including violent revolt.

    It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide.

    Progressives be warned.

    I posted it to rebut a blatantly unconstitutional claim from the far right.

  • Brian||

    Hihn:

    If its not in the constitution, its not a power of the government.
    Look again! It's in there!! Learn about the liberty you scorn.
    all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

    See that? Life and Liberty are BOTH unalienable -- thus precisely equal, by definition.

    You're not quoting the Constitution, you're quoting the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence isn't some authoritative definition of how our rights work. It simply declares independence from England. The Constitution is the supreme law of the USA.

    The word "unalienable" doesn't even occur in the Constitution, you fucking retarded child.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Brian fucked up bigly

    This principle is incorporated into the Constitution with the 9th Amendment. Learn that, too.

    There will be a test tomorrow.

  • rudehost||

    But somehow the right to defend oneself with a firearm isn't and is subject to "sensible" regulation even if it means people die waiting for their right to defend themselves.

    Hiln = zero

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Cowardly Diversion.
    Irrelevant.

    Yes, firearms are not in the 9th Amendment,. See the Second Amendment.

  • rudehost||

    Cowardly? I wouldn't consider pointing out your hypocrisy and dishonesty cowardly. It isn't exactly courageous either. It just is

    hilmn = zero

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Idiot Hihn thinks we care about debating him and his insane rants. At this point, given the way the psycho clogs up the comment threads, he just needs to be shown the door.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Idiot Hihn thinks we care about debating him

    I'm not Hihn, whoever that is ... but I KNOW you're here solely to be a bully and a thug.

    And to brag about it.

  • Sevo||

    Elilis Wyatt|8.27.18 @ 9:05PM|#
    "I'm not Hihn, whoever that is ... but I KNOW you're here solely to be a bully and a thug."

    Do you think that anyone here buys that bullshit, Hihn?
    What a pathetic piece of shit...

  • buybuydandavis||

    "I'm not Hihn"

    That's just what a Hihnpuppet *would* say.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    That's just what an Authoritarian Right conspiracy wacko *would* say.
    And his fellow gang members -- when they've been humiliated on *any* substantive issue.
    Poor losers = pussies

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Its the diversion -- away from the topic -- which is so cowardly

    One more time for the guntard ... GUN RIGHTS ARE IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- THUS HAVE NOThING TO DO WITH THE NINTH. (d'oh)

    But for sheer , absolute, drooling stupidity, it's hard to top your SCREECHING that it's "hypocrisy and dishonesty" to know the Constitution than some GUNTARD who made an ass of himself, confusing 9th and 2nd Amendments,

    But that's okay if you got your manhood back!

  • chipper me timbers||

    "One more time for the guntard ... GUN RIGHTS ARE IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- THUS HAVE NOThING TO DO WITH THE NINTH. (d'oh)"

    Actually you're wrong. The 9th is to reiterate that EVEN THOUGH many things were mentioned in 1-8, it should not be construed that these are the bounded set of all rights but in fact, just a reminder of how the government has NO power to do anyhthing not explicitly defined in the constitution. So in effect, the 9th covers gun rights, and all other rights including those reiterated in the amendments as an extra warning to the government that they have no power.

    Fat lot of good it did but that's the 9th.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Actually you're wrong.

    Read the thread.

    The 9th is to reiterate that EVEN THOUGH many things were mentioned in 1-8, it should not be construed that these are the bounded set of all rights but in fact, just a reminder of how the government has NO power to do anyhthing not explicitly defined in the constitutio

    You've confused unenumerated rights with unenumerated powers.
    Brian FALSELY says unalienable rights are NOT defended by the Constitution -- in response to the rights of Life and Liberty being precisely equal -- the 9th Amendment incorporates the Declarations's unalienable rights.

    ALL fundamental rights are absolute, thus co-equal. That includes Life, a package called Liberty, a package called Pursuit of Happiness and an unknown number of non-specified rights.
    This is elementary US History.

  • Sevo||

    Elilis Wyatt|8.27.18 @ 2:25PM|#
    "Cowardly Diversion."

    So busting you on your bullshit is a 'diversion'?
    I'd say that's simply more bullshit.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Diversion ,means avoiding the actual issue, changing it, a non sequitur

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Brian,

    --- The word "unalienable" doesn't even occur in the Constitution, you fucking retarded child. ---

    The unalienable nature of rights is implied in the way the Bill of Rights is written, always in the negative: the government shall not, congress shall not, etc. A law that purports to protect the unborn would need to be placed in the Constitution as an amendment because it would imply a prohibition imposed on individuals and not government.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    The unborn are protected. First in Roe, now in Casey. But the unborn's right to life is precisely equal to the woman's right to liberty, since they are both absolute (inalienable) rights/

  • buybuydandavis||

    It's in the emanations and penumbras. Like gay marriage.

  • David Nolan||

    Marriage is nowhere at all in the Constitution. Emanations and penumbras were replaced in the 1992 ruling, Planned Parenthood v Casey, that replaced Roe. And your raging bigotry is forbidden by the 9th and 14th Amendments,

    So much for the alt-right.

  • Eddy||

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

    "Can you list those rights, which government MUST defend?

    "I didn't think so."

    A list of 9th Amendment rights? I'd start with the right of anyone damaged in person, goods or reputation to a judicial remedy. The right of persons conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms from rendering military service in person. Many of these rights are from the contemporaneous discussion of the Constitution.

    And from the English Bill of Rights, "all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void."

    Of course this list isn't exhaustive, but I've generally depended on what was recognized as a right when the Constitution was adopted.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    You blew it at the end, even worse than the base.

    but I've generally depended on what was recognized as a right when the Constitution was adopted.

    Read again why they were NOT listed.

    As I said

    I didn't think so

    That's why it's up to SCOTUS, not you.

  • Azathoth!!||

    And, as we all know, you don't have liberty from the consequences of your own actions.

  • Juice||

    If its not in the constitution, its not a power of the government.

    Unless it's an implied power, like regulating immigration, of course.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Immigration is in the Constitution! His MASSIVE blunder was his ignorance of the 9th Amendment, as explained here.

  • DarrenM||

    No decision made by the SCOTUS may be overturned by a subsequent SCOTUS . . . until it is.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Oh.

  • Brian||

    I'm just waiting for the right to privacy found in Roe v. Wade to extend outside every uterus.

    And I keep waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    How many times can Brian misrepresent the 9th Amendment, in one 12-minute block?

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

    I'm waiting for you to list those rights, which cannot be denied or disparaged by any level of government. I suspect I'll be waiting, and waiting and waiting.

    Roe's right of privacy was later ruled to be secondary. I find it scary for YOU to there is no fundamental right to privacy, when you've shown total disregard for those rights protected by the 9th Amendment, plus not knowing its purpose.

    And if Nardz was correct (he is NOT) that 9A is the right to violent revolt ... and you both reject 9A ... does that mean we have a right to revolt against ... you (your flawed interpretation), if the become law? (Yes, but he's wrong))

    I furtther advise that Roe v Wade, though used in the vernaculat, has been irrelevant for decades. It's been superceded by Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992)

    That ruling CHANGED the basis for Roe v Wade ... yes, wrongly decided ... but upholding the outcome. It was ruled a "fundamental" right, the term now used for the Declaration's "unalienable" rights, protected by 9A. Further, Roe's trimesters were replaced with ... viability, including artificial means (incubators at the time) -- because viability keeps moving forward.

  • Jerryskids||

    "My body, my choice" does not apply to the right to put whatever substances I want into my body, to rent my body out for less than $7.25 per hour or to renting my body out for the purposes of sexual gratification for any amount of money.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    How fucking stupid can Brain be?

    The 9th amendment says that people have rights not in the constitution! Can you list them? Fuck, do you even know what your fucking rights are?

    For that, we turn to the authority on rights: The Declaration of Independence! Where Jefferson explains what our rights are! And you must listen and understand or you are a stupid nitwit!

    He says "Life" and "liberty" and these are "unalienable" which means that they are "absolute"! Don't bother looking up "unalienable" and "absolute".

    So, life... what's you right to life? Is that the right to never die? The right not to be murdered? The right to free healthcare? I don't fucking know!

    And what's the right to liberty? The right to free speech? The right to have as much money as you want without working? I don't know!

    And that's why we have SCOTUS! Duh!

    So how can you possibly not think we have a right to privacy, since it's so clearly laid out in the declaration of independence and the constitution? You have to be some kind of retard not to think exactly the way I do about your rights, now that the founding fathers have so clearly defined it for you! Are you some kind of independent thinker or some shit? YOU'RE NOT SMARTER THAN JEFFERSON, DUMBASS!!!

    God damnit you libertaraisna have ruined libertarianism with your stupid ideas of rights and partisan bickering!

    Left - Right = SHIT FUCK BALLZ!!!1111111!!!!!!!!111111!!!!

  • ace_m82||

    *Rousing applause*

  • perlchpr||

    Hrm... I sense... an actual mind behind this post. Could this be the programmer who inflicted the "Michael Hihn Robot for Shitposting and Goat Sodomy" on us?

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    For a clearer and more accurate view of the Constitution, elsewhere on this page.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Your link is broken. It just goes to some ranting drivel from a sock puppet of someone so deranged and annoying that Reason actually banned them and purged all their bullshit written under their own name.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Anyone who cares will click the link, and see for themself that you're full of shit.
    Or ,... totally ignorant that an unalienable right is absolute, thus all unalienable rights are precisely equal.

    The context is -- how to resolve a conflict between two rights, both of them absolute.

    Anything else?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Meh.

    Things are settled until they're unsettled.

    Yet another case where the Left (and I include Ms. Maine in that) want the Right to play by rules they don't respect themselves. The only rule they recognize is that they get their way.

    I'm pro abortion. But I'm honest and can say that the Roe decision was Justices making shit up. "Unsettling" settled constitutional law.

    I hope Kavanaugh joins the other Justices to shoot the Living Constitution in its head, starting with Roe, so that self government will rule again.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Learn the Constitution. The founders INTENDED for SCOTUS to continue defining rights, which is why they refused to limit what those rights are. (See 9A)

    For example, abortion was not an issue at the time. And EVERY right has been first "created" (acknowledged) by a court or tribunal for roughly 500 years. That's how it's done. There cannot be a right for something government has yet to do! That's why rights can continue expanding and evolving under Natural Law, as they have for centuries.

    In our Constitution, ONLY SCOTUS can acknowledge those -- intentionally unnamed -- rights, as a check and balance on the other two branches, which is elementary.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Learn the Constitution. The founders INTENDED for SCOTUS to continue defining rights, which is why they refused to limit what those rights are. (See 9A)

    For example, abortion was not an issue at the time. And EVERY right has been first "created" (acknowledged) by a court or tribunal for roughly 500 years. That's how it's done. There cannot be a right for something government has yet to do! That's why rights can continue expanding and evolving under Natural Law, as they have for centuries.

    In our Constitution, ONLY SCOTUS can acknowledge those -- intentionally unnamed -- rights, as a check and balance on the other two branches, which is elementary.

  • Mark22||

    Learn the Constitution. The founders INTENDED for SCOTUS to continue defining rights, which is why they refused to limit what those rights are. (See 9A)

    US government is supposed to be a government of enumerated powers. Neither SCOTUS nor anybody else should be "defining rights"; at most, they should be defining the meaning of the limited, enumerated powers that the people gave to government.

    That's why rights can continue expanding and evolving under Natural Law, as they have for centuries.

    You have already bought into the fallacy of limited enumerated rights defined by government, you're just quibbling about the details.

  • sarcasmic||

    Whatever government gives it can also take away. That's why the left talks of "Constitutional rights" as if they are granted by government, so they can be limited or abolished if it serves their ends.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Yes. As Alito put it, the unborn are denied due process.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Very few on the left do any such thing. The right us just as bad, but for a different reason, as shown by Mark22.

  • chipper me timbers||

    ^this this this

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    US government is supposed to be a government of enumerated powers

    Mark22 has confused rights with powers, and got the logic backwards
    The 9th Amendment guarantees unenumerated RIGHTS.
    Rights are superior to powers. And rights are all I mentioned.

    Repeat

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


    Can you list those rights, which government MUST defend?
    I didn't think so.

    He's got it backwards, because 9A forbids government to deny or disparage ANY AND ALL unlisted rights.

    Neither SCOTUS nor anybody else should be "defining rights"; at most, they should be defining the meaning of the limited, enumerated powers that the people gave to government.

    Again, rights are superior to powers

    And spare us delusion it that SCOTUS has no power to defend our rights, as a check and balance on the other two branches doing so, Settled law, Marbury v Madison, which we learned in high school.

    You have already bought into the fallacy of limited enumerated rights defined by government, you're just quibbling about the details.

    The Founders obviously and clearly disagree. Stop evading the 9th Amendment, and your error should become self-evident.

  • Eddy||

    Praise ye the Supreme Court. Praise the court in its sanctuary: praise it in the firmament of its power.

    Praise it for its mighty acts: praise it according to its excellent greatness.

    Praise it with the sound of the trumpet: praise it with the psaltery and harp.

    Praise it with the timbrel and dance: praise it with stringed instruments and organs.

    Praise it upon the loud cymbals: praise it upon the high sounding cymbals.

    6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the Lord. Praise ye the Lord.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Marbury v Madison. You'll learn it in high school.

    Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do.
    --Benjamin Franklin
    Complaining about a problem, without posing a solution, is whining.
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "I'm pro abortion. But I'm honest and can say that the Roe decision was Justices making shit up."
    Agreed. If Roe is a super precedent then we're openly admitting that the rule of law is obsolete and we're embracing the rule of men because enough of us like the outcome.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    If rule of man it is, then let's just get rid of all the progressives. Outside of the rule of law, why would anyone tolerate the existence of those annoying smelly hippies?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Umm, the Right to Life is unalienable. So is the Right to Liberty. Thus ,.... they are precisely equal!
    Do you not know what unalienable means?

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Kavanaugh joins the Court, he should feel free to ask whether the constitutional right to abortion truly deserves to be preserved. His answer should be: Yes.

    Don't care, really. Abortion isn't in the pantheon on decided libertarian philosophy the way that letting corporate polluters off the hook for their sludgecake or celebrating cattleman who haven't paid taxes for 30 years. Those are the true libertarian issues— not strapping some 18 year old to a gurney so she doesn't stick a clothes hanger up her pregnant Who-ha. That's up to the state to decide.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    (Repost - wound up in the wrong place)

    Libertarian principles -- aligned with Natural Law -- acknowledge that no rights can be totally absolute, because they can conflict with other absolute rights. of which there are many, and will doubtless be many more such rights in the future,

    The word "unalienable" means absolute. And all absolute rights are precisely equal to each other, which is self-evidenrt. Today we call them "fundamental" rights, having been endowed by our Creator, inherent in all human beings.

    How would YOU resolve a conflict between two rights, both of them absolute?
    That is the Constitutional function of SCOTUS, and they are obliged to resolve the conflict in way that best defends both rights equally, Here, fetal viability is the boundary -- the instant the fetus can live outside the womb (including mechanical means.

    The only thing missing, and I proposed it twice on the Libertarian Party Platform Committee. After viability, no abortionist should be allowed in the room. A live birth should then be required, with the appropriate medical staff for childbirth. That would be a bright line for "late-term" abortions, and shut down the left who would abort even during birth.

  • sarcasmic||

    Libertarian principles -- aligned with Natural Law -- acknowledge that no rights can be totally absolute, because they can conflict with other absolute rights.

    I think of liberty as meaning the freedom to do as you please as long as you don't harm the life, liberty or property of others. Going by that definition I fail to see how one person's liberty can conflict with that of another.

  • EIiIis Wyatt||

    Because you can't read! *snort*

  • sarcasmic||

    garblenarblesnarf?

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Dumbfuck spelled my name wrong ... so he could throw a childish hissy fit.

  • EIiIis Wyatt||

    error: script failed to execute
    c:\poop\cynicism\spite.exe
    ABORT Y/N

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    I think of liberty as meaning the freedom to do as you please as long as you don't harm the life, liberty or property of others. Going by that definition I fail to see how one person's liberty can conflict with that of another.

    Conflicts would involve two separate rights, here it's life and liberty, neither of which can be superior to the other,

    Your definition has some major flaws,which is why David Nolan (party founder) expanded it to "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" --- meaning NO state interference in either fiscal or personal matters.

    The definition you cite can be (and has been) used to justify the denial of
    Marriage equality
    Inter-racial marriage
    School segregation
    Woman's suffrage
    And many others.

  • The_Hoser||

    So you are clearly against abortion, right, sarcasmic?

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    That's irrational. It ignores the concept of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights. a core foundation of our Republic ... from Natural Law which traces to Aristotle (and other Greek philosophers)

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Here's how "a Facebook friend" answered that one: "I'll give the little fucker the right to live and to puke, and to cry all night, and to make my life generally fucking miserable the right to life— and little else— at birth." I immediately I friended him, of course,as a monster and proceeded over to Dana Loesch's twitter page to take a rhetorical bath from his Planned Parenthood eugenics-based agenda.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Rights can't conflict.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose

    There is no free speech right to yell fire in a crosded theater.

    Anything else?

  • Azathoth!!||

    "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose"

    Unless I am defending myself from you

    Unless we are engaging in a physical activity of some type

    Unless....

    "There is no free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater."

    Yes, there is. Anyone is free to yell fire any time they want.

    IF there is no fire and they cause a panic and people get hurt they are liable--but they had the freedom to yell fire.

    Because sometimes, Michael, there IS a fire. The actual opinion this line is appropriated from explains this.

    You must enjoy being wrong.

  • David Nolan||

    "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose"

    Unless I am defending myself from you

    Same thing!

    "There is no free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater."

    Yes, there is. Anyone is free to yell fire any time they want.

    The Supreme Court rules otherwise. And you contradict yourself immediateiy!!

    Because sometimes, there IS a fire.

    That's not "any time they want."

    Back to the top. Your fallacy here is like saying I have the right to beat the shit out of anyone I want at any time I want, because sometimes it IS self-defense.

    That's why our Founders empowered SCOTUS for these things, instead of you.

    Anything else I can explain for you, today?

  • Sevo||

    Elilis Wyatt|8.27.18 @ 5:53AM|#
    "(Repost - wound up in the wrong place)"

    Yeah, but there isn't any 'delete' on this end so I could put it in the right location.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Abortion isn't in the pantheon on decided libertarian philosophy the way that letting corporate polluters off the hook for their sludgecake"

    Oh, I bet it is in Woketarian Reason.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Now the Authoritarian Right says that Equal, Unalienable and/or God-Given rights is ... Woketerian???
    How low can they sink?

    There's no limit to how low they can sink, when they abandon the very principles of individual liberty. And both tribes do it. Left - Right = Zero

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Libertarian principles -- aligned with Natural Law -- acknowledge that no rights can be totally absolute, because they can conflict with other absolute rights. of which there are many, and will doubtless be many more such rights in the future,

    The word "unalienable" means absolute. And all absolute rights are precisely equal to each other, which is self-evidenrt. Today we call them "fundamental" rights, having been endowed by our Creator, inherent in all human beings.

    How would YOU resolve a conflict between two rights, both of them absolute?
    That is the Constitutional function of SCOTUS, and they are obliged to resolve the conflict in way that best defends both rights equally, Here, fetal viability is the boundary -- the instant the fetus can live outside the womb (including mechanical means.

    The only thing missing, and I proposed it twice on the Libertarian Party Platform Committee. After viability, no abortionist should be allowed in the room. A live birth should then be required, with the appropriate medical staff for childbirth. That would be a bright line for "late-term" abortions, and shut down the left who would abort even during birth.

  • Mickey Rat||

    If there actually is a conflict of equivalent rights, then that is a legislative function to make a determination. If the legislature has made a decision based on a false equivalency, then that is the judiciary's function to correct.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    If there actually is a conflict of equivalent rights, then that is a legislative function to make a determination.

    1) They're the only ones who can creates such a conflict. So they already fucked up.
    2) Marbury v Madison
    3) Checks and balances, three co-equal powers.
    4) Deal with it.

  • Mark22||

    In a 2000 case, Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit invoked that 1992 decision, which allowed some restrictions but affirmed "a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages."

    I think many Americans opposed to abortion would be willing to live with a compromise of abortion on demand during the first trimester, after counseling and a waiting period and without public funding or mandates. As far as I can tell, that's compatible with Roe v. Wade.

    It also covers the vast majority of abortions; the reason Democrats can't live with it is for political posturing.

  • Moo Cow||

    Tell me what Republicans are offering this "compromise?"

  • perlchpr||

    They'll only repeal half of the unconsitutional gun laws the Democrats have passed?

  • Mickey Rat||

    You have had some states have bills with 20 week or so limitations to abortion on demand, more in line with the rest of the world. The pro aborts have freaked out over them.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    If yo believe 12 weeks is a "compromise" I fell sorry for you.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Roe v Wade was replaced by Planned Parenthood vs Casey, which changed trimesters to viability (including mechanical means),. and changed it from a woman's "privacy" to a "fundamental right."

    The left needs to be shut down on abortion up to the time of birth, including partial birth. My own solution was proposed twice on the Libertarian Party Platform Committee. The fetal life is defined, as a right, but not defended. If the fetus is viable, then an abortionist should be explicitly banned from the room. The woman should have the right to terminate her pregnancy at any time, but there can be no right to kill a viable fetus. Require a live birth, by the appropriate medical staff. Win-win. Equal rights,

    I lost both times, and never again served on THAT Committee, Their position then was unlimited abortion, including partial birth, so I have fought this battle on the front lines. The Platform now is a rather cowardly avoidance of the matter..

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "It also covers the vast majority of abortions; the reason Democrats can't live with it is for political posturing"

    Democrats love to preserve ithings like this as wedge issues during elections.

  • David Nolan||

    Unalienable rights are an election wedge issue -- only because some oppose God-given rights, and Natural Law, and all that icky stuff.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Mark22
    also covers the vast majority of abortions; the reason Democrats can't live with it is for political posturing.

    There you go again.

    The same political posturing, when the right demands abortion banned at conception, and some fascist sucks up to them by trying to enshrine that into law. I'm looking at you, Rand Paul

    Left - Right = Zero

  • sarcasmic||

    Reminds me of a conversation about school choice I once had with some leftist woman. She was all for it because she equated "choice" with "abortion." She thought I was was talking about school clinics giving out free abortions. Once she figured out that I was talking about parents being able to choose where their kids went to school, she lost her mind.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    It is as if these people think a woman's right to choose does not extend past her labia!

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    So, did sarcasmic make the same moral hypocrisy, in reverse?
    Libertarians would defend choice is all matters

  • Cy||

    Hihn must've had one hell of a burrito last night to be spewing this much shit this morning. It really is impressive how much content he creates. If only he had some kind of focus besides rambling incoherently like a sick, bag lady with Alzheimers.

  • perlchpr||

    It really is impressive how much content he creates.

    It's just a robot. Notice the constant litany of repeated phrases, and indeed, entire whole comments that are just copies of comments from entirely different posts, sometimes on entirely different topics.

    Spam is easy for a robot to accomplish.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    You have no clue what rights are protected by the 9th Amendment, which may not be denied or abridged by any level of government.

    So you attack me for asking a question that exposes your ignorance of the Constitution.

    Authoritarian Right = Authoritarian Left = Militant Self-Righteousness

  • David Emami||

    Ahh, I see Mikey Hihn is at his grandpa's computer again.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Authoritarian Right = Authoritarian Left = Militant Self-Righteousness

  • Sevo||

    Elilis Wyatt|8.27.18 @ 9:08PM|#
    "Authoritarian Right = Authoritarian Left = Militant Self-Righteousness"

    Assholishness in bold caps = asshole posting.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    You have no clue what rights are protected by the 9th Amendment, which may not be denied or abridged by any level of government.

    So you attack me for asking a question that exposes your authoritarian rejection ignorance of the Constitution and individual rights.

  • EIiIis Wyatt||

    WELL IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY SHIT WHY DO YOU EAT IT?!! HA!! *SMIRK*

    \Kavanaugh{abortion}_
    _____execute 245665.bat
    The program failed to execute
    ABORT Y/N

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Cowardly evasion

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

    Can you list the rights protected by 9A, which may not be denied or disparaged by any level of government?
    If you knew what those rights are, you'd have listed them ... instead of whining like a pussy,
    and your infantile name-calling. Did you stick your tongue out?

  • EIIis Wyatt||

    WE ARE LEGION

  • EIiIis Wyatt||

    HIHNBOTS ASSEMBLE!

  • David NoIan||

    BY THE POWER OF BOLDTEXT

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Goober cannot list the rights protected by the 9th Amendment
    So punishes me for asking the question that exposes his ignorance of the Constitution.
    (sigh)

  • David Emami||

    He's "punishing" you for coming back under a different alias while apparently assuming everyone here is not going to recognize your eye-watering formatting. Someone who actually has ideas worth reading is also able to get those ideas across via the content of his prose, not how the letters look. No bold, no allcaps, no emotes or other body language/voice tone substitutes. It's a good heuristic (though not a sure thing) that when someone uses those, their words probably aren't anything special.

    As I've said before, I'm sure glad blink tags aren't around anymore, and I'm more than glad that Reason's forum software doesn't support animated GIFs, because you'd certainly be using them.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Self-defense, asshole

  • Sevo||

    Elilis Wyatt|8.27.18 @ 9:09PM|#
    "Self-defense, asshole"

    Stupidity, shitbag.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Hihn is the guy at the bar that stands there calling you a motherfucker while flicking peanuts at you face and just won't stop. Then when you finally have had enough and stand up to beat his ass, he's just kidding and claiming self defense when he gets his ass kicked.

    Reason needs to ban/purge him again.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The best thing is to get everyone to ignore his arguments and refuse to engage him on any topic. Limiting any response to an insult or nothing.

  • David Emami||

    You're right, I should try. But I do wonder, how is him making his posts hideously-ugly defending himself against anyone?

  • buybuydandavis||

    I AM HIHNMAN!

  • David Nolan||

    Five aggressors oppose self-defense, on a libertarian web site.
    And to .... conform to diktats,
    Sad.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    See the authoritarian thugs sneer at self-defense.
    That's like calling a woman a pussy for complaining as they rape her.
    Or those damn Jews, when they screamed in horror at the gas seeping into their cells.
    Manliness!

  • David Emami||

    I'd still like to know how making your posts ugly defends you, and against what.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    If you don't know what self-defense means, you'd never understand it.

  • David Emami||

    I know very well what self-defense means. I'm asking what you're defending against, and how formatting your posts so hideously defends you against it.

    Unless, that is, you're defending yourself against being taken seriously, in which case I have to agree, your method is very effective.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "Hihn must've had one hell of a burrito last night to be spewing this much shit this morning"

    Which is really impressive when you consider that even that was filtered by the amounts that his adult Depends contained and how much he consumed through his digestive tract.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    " Now, though, he tells me, "Appointees of presidents who made a point of attacking Roe have voted to uphold it. That kind of resilience ought to give Roe a much greater claim not to be overruled.""

    Basically what's been happening is that the political class, who as a group have systematically different views on social issues than the general population, have been running a political bait and switch operations. "Conservative" politicians run on being pro-life, and then make sure to nominate judges who will rule pro-"choice".

    So, now the public finally manage to elect some politicians who won't play this game, and we're told that a generation of bait and switch has put the topic beyond reconsideration? How convenient...

  • Mickey Rat||

    The leftist part of pro-abort rights crowd want dead precedent with regards to Roe and a Living Constitution everywhere else. They do not even consider clauses in the constitution enumerating rights as immutable as Roe, so I do not consider their hand wringing over it any more than self serving.

    Roe's existence has done great damage to the Court's legitimacy as a usurpation of state and legislative authority to the federal judiciary which has been a major factor in politicizing the court and the appointment process. Overturning it and returning authority to the states and legislatures would restore legitimacy to the federal bench. Pretending Blackmun's hubristic ruling was not an error only compounds the mistake.

  • Jerryskids||

    Pretending Blackmun's hubristic ruling was not an error only compounds the mistake.

    I've often said the "penumbras and emanations" opinion was one of the worst decisions SCOTUS ever made - it stands the Constitution on its head to say that upholding a right requires finding that right expressed within the Constitution. The Constitution is an instrument of the People granting rights to the government, if the Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion then the government has no power to legislate on the issue. But now you've got any number of people who think Constitutional rights are the rights granted to you by the Constitution and government is free to do whatever it pleases as long as there's nothing in the Constitution expressly forbidding it. These are the people who bray about "democracy" and "the will of the people" without understanding that the Constitution was instituted the way it was specifically to guard against democracy and the will of the people, otherwise known as "mob rule" and "the tyranny of the majority".

  • Earth Skeptic||

    But, Democracy Now! (As long as I get to set the context, the rules, and the participant pool.)

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    I've often said the "penumbras and emanations" opinion was one of the worst decisions SCOTUS ever made

    That's why it was removed in a later decision, Planned Parenthood v Casey, in 1992 Instead, more properly defined as a fundamental right protected by the 9th Amendment.

    Anything else?

  • Jerryskids||

    You people are retarded. Overturning Roe v Wade is a hobbyhorse the GOP has been riding for years and years and years along with smaller government, spending cuts, free trade and opposition to the Democratic Party. (And more lately, repealing socialized medicine.) How many times has the GOP had an opportunity to go after abortion rights and failed to do a damn thing? It's red meat for the base and a sure-fire campaign issue that brings in the cash, there's no way in hell the GOP is going to derail that gravy train. Roe v Wade isn't settled law because of some scrap of paper a bunch of dead white guys wrote over a hundred years ago that nobody gives a shit about any more, it's settled law because there's a broad bipartisan consensus that abortion is a shiny squirrel to distract duh masses.

  • Cy||

    +1

    Why would they give back a gift that keeps on giving?

  • sarcasmic||

    GOP politicians quack a good quack, but they walk like big-government ducks.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Didn't see anyone post a comment saying they believed the GOP was going to make this happen, but maybe I missed it...

  • Rich||

    Most judges and scholars agree that some Supreme Court decisions are so fundamental to modern law and life that they are immune from reconsideration

    Emphases added. Sounds like bullshit to me.

  • Rat on a train||

    Plessy v. Ferguson?

  • wreckinball||

    Maybe Dred Scott. Chapman is a complete idiot.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    There are public universities which continue to exclude applicants on the basis of race, even sixty years after Brown v. Board of Education.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Complaining about a problem, without posing a solution, is whining.
    -Theodore Roosevelt

    Pussies

  • chipper me timbers||

    "There are public universities which continue to exclude applicants on the basis of race, even sixty years after Brown v. Board of Education."

    Correct. These applicants are white males.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Just like that school board in Topeka used to exclude white males (and females) from certain schools.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    The entire state of Arkansas did that. And Georgia, Most of the south, actually,

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Roe v. Wade is the most brilliantly reasoned Supreme Court decision of the past half century. It's astonishing that Brett Kavanaugh could graduate from whatever fancy law school he attended without realizing this. If I ran things, nobody would be allowed to graduate from even a 5th tier school without writing a 1,000 word essay promising to defend Roe in the future. I mean for crying out loud, it's not a mere precedent, it's a SUPER-PRECEDENT.

    Whatever Kavanaugh says about the decision now, don't believe him. The Drumpf regime wants to use him to create a literal Handmaid's Tale society by eliminating reproductive rights. We as libertarians cannot allow this. Call your Senators and get them to go on the record with their plans to use every procedural maneuver available to prevent the radical right-wing reshaping of our highest court by an illegitimate Kremlin asset President.

    #StopKavanaugh
    #Resist

  • Eddy||

    Uncanny.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Dude, take your meds. Based upon his actions there's only about a 30% chance President Trump is an honest-to-God Russian agent. That's a chance i'm Willing to take given his shining moral example and to support the GOP's libertarian agenda.

    #TRUMP_IS_A_VICTIM_LIKE_AL_CAPONE

  • perlchpr||

    Now that LTAL has gotten up on plane, these interactions have become a highlight of these threads. They almost make up for the robots polluting the place.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Thanks, man. To be honest, I was initially afraid that the cause of libertarianism had been taken over by Marxist Postmodernists, but it's reassuring to me that the comment board here hasn't deviated much from the standard conservative bitch and moan fest... WHICH I TOTALLY SUPPORT, BTW!! DOWN WITH TWITTER!!

  • Nardz||

    Yea, no.
    LTAL has no talent, doesn't understand satire, but does accidentally strike a semi-decent note.
    He's not even close to LTAL, but progressivism does provide so much material.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Trump is no Russian agent, but we know he owes his entire fortune to Deutsche Bank, a convicted money-launderer of Russian Funds.

    When Trump's many bankruptcies, and other business failures, made him one of the worst credit risks in America, no bank would lend him a dime and he was essentially broke, Deutsche Bank loaned him $135 million, which he then used to buy properties ... for cash .. no mortgage. Thus, it's quite likely that Deutsche Bank made UNSECURED loans (in cash) to a deadbeat.

    Trump has also sold properties at immense markeups after short-term ownership.

    Those are both practices of money laundering. Can Mueller prove that? If so, Trump literally sold his soul to Putin. At the very least, it's self-evident that so many bankruptcies and other failures would have shut down his borrowing, where borrowing is essential to a real estate investor.

    And he was forced to pay a $25 million settlement for fraud by Trump University, as a sitting President.

  • Azathoth!!||

    It really is illuminating.

    This--

    Dude, take your meds. Based upon his actions there's only about a 30% chance President Trump is an honest-to-God Russian agent. That's a chance i'm Willing to take given his shining moral example and to support the GOP's libertarian agenda.

    #TRUMP_IS_A_VICTIM_LIKE_AL_CAPONE

    thinks that it's at least as good as this--

    Roe v. Wade is the most brilliantly reasoned Supreme Court decision of the past half century. It's astonishing that Brett Kavanaugh could graduate from whatever fancy law school he attended without realizing this. If I ran things, nobody would be allowed to graduate from even a 5th tier school without writing a 1,000 word essay promising to defend Roe in the future. I mean for crying out loud, it's not a mere precedent, it's a SUPER-PRECEDENT.

    Whatever Kavanaugh says about the decision now, don't believe him. The Drumpf regime wants to use him to create a literal Handmaid's Tale society by eliminating reproductive rights. We as libertarians cannot allow this. Call your Senators and get them to go on the record with their plans to use every procedural maneuver available to prevent the radical right-wing reshaping of our highest court by an illegitimate Kremlin asset President.

    #StopKavanaugh
    #Resist

    And that should tell you all you need to know.

  • DarrenM||

    Good parody of a left-wing loon.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    GREAT parody of a right-wing loon!

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Nick GiIlespie||

    Nice piece, Steve. Really good. Keep 'em coming.

  • Eddy||

    Oh, great, don't click on the name. Seriously.

  • Rat on a train||

    Don't even hover.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Assholes prowl here.

  • Sevo||

    Thanks.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Fuck. Now my IP address is on a list somewhere.

  • Duelles||

    Chapman is wrong that Roe was sensible. It was decided based on the "ends justify the means." No legal system can survive based of that pathetic decision making process. That it would be too disruptive to overturn is clear. Sometimes mistakes make it into our DNA.

  • Eddy||

    ...and then you can abort them. No DNA, no problem!

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    The "end" is called Equal, Unalienable and/or God-given Rights.
    Ever hear of them?

  • wreckinball||

    God is this author dumb!

    "The pertinent question for the nominee is whether Roe is entitled to be treated as not merely a precedent, which the Court should not lightly reverse, but a "super-precedent," which the Court should not reverse, period."

    Dumbest Reason sentence of the day. Congratulations Steve because there is a lot of dumb as shit stuff on Reason that you had to beat out.

    Precedent is just that. It is a prior "interpretation" of the court.

  • Eddy||

    Steve Chapman is dumb, and the idea is dumb, and it's possible he's sympathetic to the idea (hard to parse his nonsense), but the idea of a super-precedent isn't Chapman's, it originated with people who ought to know better.

  • DarrenM||

    The only thing a "super-precedent" is is something a very large majority of the population agree on. If that consensus was flipped overnight, that previous decision would no longer be a "super-precedent".

  • GILMORE™||

    Chapman is Reason's greatest legal analyst. Why do they even both with these Volokhy people nearby when they can simply phone up Steve and get class-A Lawsplainers like this. He and Popehat should go into business.

  • Lester224||

    The whole abortion debate is just about religion. A random person's freedom of religion (the religion that makes zygotes and fetuses into actual people while their brainwaves are still the same as people declared dead) does not impinge on another's freedom from bodily slavery. You can't chain a woman to a bed and force her to give birth after a failure of birth control or even careless sex. Perhaps you can argue the point after the fetus inside her has grown enough to have brain function that would usually be considered "alive".

    I find the religious conservatives pretending to be libertarians by claiming fetuses are the same as people and "life, liberty" arguments as transparent as the pro-police-state conservatives claiming to libertarians and the socialists who happen to like pot.

  • ace_m82||

    The purpose of government is (supposed to be) to punish or prevent initiations of force. The worse initiation of force is supposedly murder.

    If government is incompetent to define "murder", then why should government exist?

  • EscherEnigma||

    If government is incompetent to define "murder", then why should government exist?


    Because it's still better then the alternative.

    Please note, this is not to say that all governments are better then anarchy, just that our current one is. Things may develop such that anarchy becomes preferable, at which point we'll probably see a violent revolution.

    But we're not there yet, and the current trajectory does not appear to point in that direction.

  • ace_m82||

    "Because it's still better then the alternative."

    It initiates force twice by its mere existence. Once when it taxes, and again when it tries to enforce its claim on monopoly of force.

    It's supposed to prevent or punish other initiations of force in order to "pay" for those ones. If it's too incompetent, then it's counterproductive to its supposed aim.

    "Please note, this is not to say that all governments are better then anarchy, just that our current one is."

    Anarchy =/= chaos. It means "without archon (ruler)". I have zero evidence that the current government is better than anarchy, and it's already incompetent to do what it claims to be there to do.

  • David Nolan||

    There is no better or worse when people exercise free choice, in a non-aggressive manner.
    A core tenet of libertarianism.

  • ace_m82||

    True. That's why the State is so evil. It's the opposite of free choice and non-aggression.

    www.reason.com/archives/2014/0.....-and-proud
    www.mises.org/library/anatomy-state

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Crazy bullshit -- since your are just as horrific toward rights, with no force at all.
    My idols, David Nolan and Ayn Rand, called you out decades ago.
    And it's why you have no more than 3% of Americans who agree with you ... but you demand authority over them. That's just another tyranny, like we've suffered for thousands of years

    Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do.
    --Benjamin Franklin
    Complaining about a problem, without posing a solution, is whining.
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • ace_m82||

    "Crazy bullshit"

    Appeal to ridicule.

    "since your are just as horrific toward rights"

    The one right is so absolute that it cannot come into conflict. It isn't subject to the whims of majority rule, either.

    "My idols, David Nolan and Ayn Rand"

    So you admit to your idol worship.

    "but you demand authority over them"

    Only to live my life as I see fit unless I initiate force, yes. Everyone has that authority.

    "That's just another tyranny"

    The socialist calls those with wealth "tyrants" and in the same way, you're calling me demanding that my one right be respected "tyranny". How very Orwellian of you.

    Tell us again, Hihn, how "consent of the governed" (majority rule) means that rights (the one right) isn't violated!

    www.reason.com/archives/2018/0.....nt_7360566

    Hihn: "[T]hey say 'consent of the governed' must be unanimous. One man can overrule 350 million Americans. That's authoritarian."

    Then, Hihn, tell us how government is voluntary!

    www.reason.com/reasontv/2017/0.....e-will-die

    Hihn: "Government - like Kiwanis, dumfuck -- is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION.
    ITS MEMBERS AGREE, FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY -- TO JAIL THEMSELVES FOR REFUSING TO PAY THE DUES."

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do.
    --Benjamin Franklin

    Complaining about a problem, without posing a solution, is whining.
    -Theodore Roosevelt

  • ace_m82||

    Any fool can quote smarter people. A wise person has a solution for the circle of evil, namely, to stop pushing it along!

    My solution? Private justice and law. No State (and the necessary initiations of force) necessary.

    www.mises.org/library/law-without-state

    www.mises.org/wire/natural-law.....it-justice

    You hate that, because that would mean you are wrong, Hihn, and you are physically incapable of admitting you could be wrong.

    BTW, do you plan on arguing the points I brought up, or just quitting here?

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Evasion

    The definition you cite can be (and has been) used to justify the denial of
    Marriage equality
    Inter-racial marriage
    School segregation
    Woman's suffrage
    And many others.
  • ace_m82||

    "Evasion"

    Direct response, line by line.

    "The definition you cite can be (and has been) used to justify the denial of"

    Negative. All of those denials have been done by the State, which is twice an initiation of force. Only without the State can there be true freedom.

    I'm an An-Cap, the State is my enemy. Anything evil it has done is further proof that I'm right!

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Learn what unalienable means. It means absolute. All absolute rights are equal to each other.
    How would YOU resolve a conflict between two rights, when both are absolute?
    Murder is defined but has no relevance here, a conflict between TWO absolute rights.
    YOU fail to define, or defend, liberty.

    Also learn the he purpose of THIS government, which is not for YOU to decide what it's supposed to be.
    And it's none of your business, since you're an anarchist. Yes, Virginia anarchists can be authoritarian, when they claim we have NO RIGHT to create governments = authoritarian mentality/

  • ace_m82||

    Hihn, that's not on topic in the least bit, and you didn't even attempt to answer.

    "How would YOU resolve a conflict between two rights, when both are absolute?"

    There is only one right, the right to do everything other than initiate force. That right cannot come into conflict with itself. Show me humans at (physical) conflict and I'll show you at least one party that initiated force.

    "Murder is defined but has no relevance here..."

    No, it isn't. Who is possible to murder? Is a "zygote"? If done by the mother, then no, if done by anyone else, then yes.

    "Also learn the he purpose of THIS government, which is not for YOU to decide what it's supposed to be."

    My right to do anything other than initiate force isn't up for majority vote. No one's right is.

    "And it's none of your business, since you're an anarchist."

    It's my business the moment it initiates force against me, Hihn.

    "Yes, Virginia anarchists can be authoritarian..."

    A definitional impossibility.

    "when they claim we have NO RIGHT to create governments"

    You can make whatever organization you want and call it whatever you want. You cannot initiate force with it. Governments (actually, the State) does so definitionally, so you cannot make that.

    Of course, Hihn, I've explained this to you many times. You just refuse to learn and refuse to change.

    So, go ahead and claim how I've "aggressed" or "stalked" you, because I responded to your response!

  • David Nolan||

    I'm not Hihn but you merely fucked up. Bigly. It's your inherent racism and oppression that caused my namesake (the founder of the LP) to reject your failed definition with "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" -- as the depiction of a government that does not abuse economic or personal liberties.

    The abuses are massive, by an-caps, Miseans, Paulistas and their fellow travelers -- whose racism and homophobia are a disgrace to individual liberty.

    There is no initiation of force by your statist abuses of
    1) Woman's suffrage
    2) Inter-racial marriage
    3) Marriage equality
    4) Segregation
    5) ANY and ALL equal protection of individual rights

    Rights must be protected, That's why they exist. Refusing to protect them equally initiates no force. but sanctions and justifiers abuses of individual liberty.

    That's how Ron Paul justified his shameful attempt to forbid SCOTUS from even considering any appeals to DOMA ... denying individuals the defense of constitutional rights guaranteed by the 9th and 14th amendments ... for the first tine since slavery

    Shame on you, and your ilk, for your institutional bigotry and faux liberty.
    You disgust me, and all TRUE lovers and defenders of individual liberty.

  • ace_m82||

    Hihn, don't lie. We all know who you are.

    "It's your inherent racism and oppression..."

    ? In what way have I seemed to be racist or oppressive?

    "your failed definition with 'fiscally conservative and socially liberal'"

    One that spends freely (as conservatives do) and takes away your freedom of association and firearms (as liberals do). Great definition, Hihn.

    "The abuses are massive, by an-caps"

    An-Caps can't abuse (physically), definitionally.

    "whose racism and homophobia"

    Lies.

    "There is no initiation of force by your statist abuses of..."

    The State is twice an initiation of force, definitionally. Once when it taxes, and again when it prevents others from using responsive force. The rest of the sentence is thusly wrong.

    "Refusing to protect [rights] equally initiates no force."

    Actually, it doesn't, though it is something that people should (and will) do, sans the State (which definitionally initiates force).

    "That's how Ron Paul..."

    I don't appear to be Ron Paul. I'll let him defend himself from your illogic, Hihn.

    "attempt to forbid SCOTUS..."

    The SCOTUS is an organization with a terrible history on defending rights:
    Dred Scott
    Plessy v Ferguson
    Wickard v Filburn
    Korematsu
    (etc.)

    "You disgust me, and all TRUE lovers and defenders of individual liberty."

    Hihn claims to be the one, True Scotsman!

  • ace_m82||

    Bah, I jacked up this response here:

    "Refusing to protect [rights] equally initiates no force."

    Actually, it doesn't [initiate force], though [protecting people's right] is something that people should (and will) do, sans the State (which definitionally initiates force).

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Non-responsive diversion (smirk)

  • ace_m82||

    Hihn, switching between your handles makes it (somehow) worse.

    Also, directly quoting what you said and responding to it line by line is the very definition of a "response".

    Argue the points!

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Evasion

    The definition you cite can be (and has been) used to justify the denial of
    Marriage equality
    Inter-racial marriage
    School segregation
    Woman's suffrage
    And many others.
  • ace_m82||

    "Evasion"

    Direct response, line by line.

    "The definition you cite can be (and has been) used to justify the denial of"

    Negative. All of those denials have been done by the State, which is twice an initiation of force. Only without the State can there be true freedom.

    I'm an An-Cap, the State is my enemy. Anything evil it has done is further proof that I'm right!

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Learn what unalienable means. It means absolute. All absolute rights are equal to each other.

    Hihn, that's not on topic in the least bit, and you didn't even attempt to answer.

    When (and if) you ever learn what unalienable rights means, you'll see the magnitude of your latest screwup.

    Oh yeah, you never got around to explaining your contempt for absolute rights.

    And my name is not Hihn. There are a LOT more than him, who know you are bat-shit crazy
    Like 98% of Americans.

  • ace_m82||

    "When (and if) you ever learn what unalienable rights..."

    There is only the one, the right to do anything other than initiate force. It cannot come into conflict.

    "Oh yeah, you never got around to explaining your contempt for absolute rights."

    The one right is so absolute that it cannot come into conflict.

    "And my name is not Hihn."

    You lie. Again.

    "There are a LOT more than him"

    There is only one of you.

    "Like 98% of Americans."

    Appeal to majority.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Evasion

    The definition you cite can be (and has been) used to justify the denial of
    Marriage equality
    Inter-racial marriage
    School segregation
    Woman's suffrage
    And many others.
  • ace_m82||

    "Evasion"

    Direct response, line by line.

    "The definition you cite can be (and has been) used to justify the denial of"

    Negative. All of those denials have been done by the State, which is twice an initiation of force. Only without the State can there be true freedom.

    I'm an An-Cap, the State is my enemy. Anything evil it has done is further proof that I'm right!

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    The whole abortion debate is just about religion.

    You could just as easily say it's about the "settled science" nonsense around fetal awareness and nociception. The scientific opinions of 26 weeks until the possibility of nociception/awareness suited the pro-choicers and they stuck with those, and others claim that the whole question of fetal awareness and perception is "unhelpful to women". To me, "unhelpful to women" is meaningless because collective generalization. There are still scientists who would claim that any non-human species isn't conscious or aware in any meaningful way, but anyone who has ever owned or worked with animals knows that's bullshit. My dog wouldn't do so well on his SAT but I consider him sentient. It would seem, in both cases, to make more sense to work from the opposite end, and consider the possibility of pain/awareness/effect of general anesthetic on a fetus and until it is totally proved to be absolutely impossible, to take this into consideration for any decision to abort at least past 20 weeks, if not earlier.

    Maybe I'm an idiot, perhaps the "fetal pain argument" is deader than a dismebered fetus sucked out of the birth canal in pieces.

    Even so, it's not entirely about religious belief. There are some prominent lobbyists from religious groups, but there are also questions to which the answers are obfuscated by those with agendas to protect.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    Maybe I'm an idiot,

    It's a certainty

    perhaps the "fetal pain argument" is deader than a dismebered fetus sucked out of the birth canal in pieces.

    Hysteria mongering, like the Christian Taliban you deny.
    The woman's unalienable right to Liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child's unaliwnable right to Life.
    All your nonsensical babbling about science ... but you are ignorant of the simple definition for unalienable..
    Perhaps when you take US History in high school ...

  • Gilbert Martin||

    The idea of something being a "super precedent" regardless of whether it's actually Constitutional or not is absurd.

    It's exactly the reason why we have bloated federal government today that operates as if every aspect of existence is within it's power to mess with.

    The courts operate on a house of cards of stuff made up out of whole cloth that has no basis in the actual text of the Constitution as the words therein were understood to mean by those who drafted and ratified the document.

    From bogus expansionist interpretations of the interstate commerce clause to bogus interpretations of "general welfare" to the bogus denigration of economic rights as second class by excluding them from a made up category of "fundamental" rights (as if freedom of speech were any more fundamental than private property rights), the courts have systematically rubber stamped expansions of state power by declining to do the actual job they swore an oath to do - uphold the Constitution.

    All those government power grabbing "super precedents" should be thrown out with the trash.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    The idea of something being a "super precedent" regardless of whether it's actually Constitutional or not is absurd.

    Your ignorance of constitutional principles and individual liberty is absurd.

  • 10mm||

    So many Hihn bots, I'm confused now how to separate actual retards from fake retards. Can someone make a noob's guide to Reason comments?

  • Sevo||

    1) When you find a hihnfected thread, assume it will be dominated with several Hihn socks, every one named in the hopes of gaining un-warranted sympathy, some arguing with each other.
    2) Locate the real Hihn (post looks like a random note), sling any and all insults at him/her.
    3) Do NOT bother engaging.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yeah, I'm done debating with that piece of shit. I just insult him and move on. Hihn is incredibly pathetic. Probably a cowering gutless work in person.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Hihn - bot = 0

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    The Authoritarian Right is exactly like the Authoritarian Left, tactically.
    When they LOSE on an issue -- which is always, on the topic of liberty -- they go ape-shit with purely infantile sneering and name-calling. It's the mentality if a thug.

    Left - Right = Zero
    That's why God invented libertarians

    The Right wants government out of your wallet and into your bedroom.
    The Left wants government out of your bedroom and into your wallet.
    ONLY libertarians DEFY government intrusion into BOTH economic and personal issues.

    Democrats borrow trillions to provide free stuff.
    Republicans and faux libertarians borrow trillions to provide free tax cuts.
    Libertarians know CUT SPENDING is the only way to shrink government. (Grade-school arithmetic, duh!)

    On the right, their motto, like Trump's, is the Art of the Squeal.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    10mm loses on the issue -- has NO CLUE how to answer one simple question, so -- like all losers in the Authoritarian Right, he invents bots ... and sneers ,... to hide his ignorance of the Constitution.

    What does the 9th Amendment protect?

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

    Can you list those rights -- which NO level of government may deny or disparage?
    Or are you just another whining pussy?

  • chipper me timbers||

    "Roe, in my opinion, was a sensible decision enshrining a crucial right."

    Good god. I'm 100% against the government intervening in a persons' abortion decision but even I know that Roe is garbage.

  • Ellis Wyatt||

    You need to understand the concept of equal, unalienable and/or God-given rights. Quite basic to understanding our Founders' intent.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Yikes.

    *surveys the damage and retreats carefully from what used to be a comments section, flinching slightly as some plaster falls from the ceiling, taking care not to tread on any broken glass*

  • SardonicOne||

    "Roe, in my opinion, was a sensible decision enshrining a crucial right. But for its defenders to say it is beyond re-examination by the Court would be putting preference over principle."

    Some very intelligent progressives who believe in the right to abortion say that _Roe_ is a terrible decision. They say this because it is a terrible decision, and I note that later cases which depend on _Roe_ have invariably changed the nature and basis of the _right._ It wouldn't be _Roe's_ fall that would change abortion, but the cases which have depended on Roe, even if only in name, not upon _Roe's_ jurisprudential reasoning.

    It is rather amusing to see this sentence, however:

    Most judges and scholars agree that some Supreme Court decisions are so fundamental to modern law and life that they are immune from reconsideration—such as Brown v. Board of Education, which banned segregated public schools, and the 1871 ruling that paper money is not unconstitutional.

    _Brown_ of course, overturned the _Plessy_ case, which had been settled law for 58 years.

  • David Nolan||

    Too many of you ignore the core principle of Equal, Unalienable and/or God-given rights .. the very core of America's founding values, and Natural Law tracing to ... Aristotle.

    Unalienable rights are absolute, That's what it means. Jefferson and our Founders were NOT illiterate.

    That means all fundamental rights are equal to each other. If two rights are in conflict, NEITHER is superior to the other. BOTH must be defended equally.

    A fetal child has an Unalienable right to Life. The woman does NOT lose her God-given right to Liberty by becoming pregnant. If that woman chooses to abort,, she has the Liberty to do so, but NO right to deny or disparage the fetal child's right to Life. BOTH those rights MUST be defended EQUALLY.

    Only fascists disagree. To fascists on the right, "purity" denies the woman's right to Liberty -- at conception To fascists on the left, "purity" denies the fetal child's right to Life -- until natural birth.. Both seek to impose their denial of a fundamental right by force of law. BY WHAT RIGHT?

    NOBODY has ANY power or right to deny EITHER right. The current standard has fetal viability as the "boundary" between two conflicting rights. Reasonable people can disagree WHERE that line is drawn, but NOBODY may deny the EQUAL protection of BOTH rights. Period.

    One problem does remain. The woman's Liberty is fully protected but not the child's Life. Yet.

    Cont'd

  • David Nolan||

    Part 2 of 2

    I proposed this twice, on the Libertarian Platform Committee. When the child becomes viable, no abortionist is allowed in the room. The woman retains her right to terminer ... the pregnancy, not a viable life. A live birth must occur. Only this would FULLY and EQUALLY protect BOTH rights, with NARROW exceptions for the woman's life and health. Amend the Constitution to this. Human Life and Liberty cannot be subject to federalism. Each state cannot define life on its own. Get real.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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