MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

3 Questions for SCOTUS Nominee Neil Gorsuch

What the Senate Judiciary Committee should ask the Supreme Court candidate.

C-SPANC-SPANOn Monday the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin confirmation hearings on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gorsuch is a highly respected federal judge with admirers across the political spectrum. But there are still some major unanswered questions about his jurisprudence. Here are three questions that I would like to hear Judge Gorsuch address as he faces the Senate Judiciary Committee next week.

1. Congressional Power

The use of recreational marijuana is currently legal in eight states. Yet Congress continues to ban marijuana on the federal level, and the Supreme Court has upheld the federal marijuana ban as a lawful exercise of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court did this in the 2005 case of Gonzales v. Raich, despite the fact that the medical marijuana at issue in that dispute was both grown and consumed entirely within the state of California.

I'd like to hear Judge Gorsuch, a self-described constitutional originalist, explain his views on the proper scope of congressional power under the Commerce Clause. Does he think that the federal authority to regulate interstate commerce is broad enough to allow Congress to ban a local activity that is legal under state law and that never crosses any state lines?

2. Executive Power

The federal courts are currently hearing arguments about the constitutionality of President Trump's newly revised executive order banning travelers from certain majority-Muslim countries. In February the Trump administration told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that Trump's first executive order on this matter was effectively beyond the reach of "even limited judicial review." In fact, according to the Trump administration, the federal courts have no business taking "the extraordinary step of second-guessing a formal national-security judgment made by the President himself pursuant to broad grants of statutory authority."

I'd like to know if Judge Gorsuch agrees that the president's executive orders are beyond the reach of judicial review if the orders are ostensibly connected to the president's "formal national-security judgment." How deferential must the federal courts be to president when he is acting in the name of national security?

3. Unenumerated Rights

The Constitution lists of a number of individual rights that the government is forbidden from violating, such as the right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms. But the Constitution also refers to rights that it does not expressly list. For example, the 9th Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Likewise, the 14th Amendment says, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The Supreme Court has recognized and protected a number of unwritten rights over the years, such as the right to privacy, the right of parents to educate their children in private schools, and the right to gay marriage. None of those rights appear anywhere in the text of the Constitution.

In his 2006 book The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Judge Gorsuch sharply criticized the Supreme Court for protecting unenumerated rights via the Due Process Clause, claiming that the clause is "stretched beyond recognition" when it is held to be "the repository of other substantive rights not expressly enumerated in the text of the Constitution or its amendments."

Judge Gorsuch has apparently rejected the idea of defending unenumerated rights under the Due Process Clause. But what about the 9th Amendment? And what about the Privileges or Immunities Clause? Regrettably, his book did not address those provisions. I'd like to hear what Judge Gorsuch has to say about them. What is his view of the 9th Amendment? What does he think the Privileges or Immunities Clause means? Does he believe that either one protects any rights that are not listed in the Constitution? And if not, does he think the Supreme Court should reverse its prior decisions and eliminate the unwritten right to privacy?

The American people deserve to hear what Judge Gorsuch has to say about these crucial constitutional issues. The Senate Judiciary Committee should ask him about them during his confirmation hearings next week.

Related: What you need to know about SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch

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.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Why was this article not written by Judge Napolitano? And how would it have differed if it had been?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Judge Nap is a shill for Fox News goobers -- as shown by his laughably pathetic version of Obama's "wiretapping"

  • kbolino||

    Why are you bullying Judge Nap, Michael? Such unwarranted aggression by you against him.

  • Michael Hihn||

    kbolino
    Where's Trump's $15 billion/year tax loophole, Michael? You still haven't justified that number you pulled out of your ass.

    One more time for the lying aggressor. THE EXEMPTION FROM THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX, as explained here.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6794915

    (emphasis added for the morally crippled)

    He already gets a huge loophole. Equal to (probably) $15 billion that year

    According to what calculation?

    EXEMPT FROM THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX.

    While responding to your TOTAL FUCKUP immediately above. My emphasis again (yawn)

    "Anybody can own a corporation and their income will be taxed according to the corporate income schedule"

    Then, after your bullying. I repeated it here.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6795201

    (Trump's business are "pass-through" corporations, EXEMPT FROM THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX ... which is why .... (laughing hysterically) .... the released form is a ****1040****.. So if you don't even know that a 1040 is PERSONAL income tax then ... you obviously never paid the income tax! Still in high school?)

    (boldface in defense of repeated aggression by a serial stalker. He began stalking me when I publicly humiliate him weeks ago, like just now)

    Watch him keep assaulting me.

    (A supported argument is not aggression)

  • kbolino||

    Repetition is not support. You just made the number up and now hope that if you repeat it enough it will become valid. It doesn't work that way, sport. No matter how much formatting you use, you have presented no argument.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I owe you an apology, Someone else pointed out my typo. I've said his corporate loophole is $15 billion .. instead of 15 million. So sorry.

    But you're still wrong on the main issues
    1) 60% tax cut for himself
    2) Corporate taxes paid by pension funds -- on workers -- that Trump is already exempt from.
    3) That Trump pays ANY corporate income taxes (see #2)

    Again, please accept my deepest apology for the typo,
    Your turn.

  • kbolino||

    I appreciate and accept your apology.

    However, your arguments are still lacking.

    1) "60% tax cut for himself" ... and millions of other Americans, along with lesser cuts for virtually every taxpayer.
    2) "Corporate taxes paid by pension funds -- on workers -- that Trump is already exempt from" ... what are you referring to? Personal income taxes? Those are paid by the worker. Payroll taxes? Trump is not exempt from paying those. Workers don't pay corporate income taxes and pensions have nothing to do with this.
    3) "That Trump pays ANY corporate income taxes (see #2)" ... he pays personal income tax instead. He's not exempt from income tax. This "exemption" is available to anyone, with an s-corp or LLC.

    Also, while $15 million is a lot more plausible, you still haven't explained it. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm asking for you to walk through the calculations that led you to the number.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Part 1 of 2

    However, your arguments are still lacking.

    These are 5th and 6th repeats – now adding how Trump screws YOU,

    1) "60% tax cut for himself" ...

    and millions of other Americans, along with lesser cuts for virtually every taxpayer.

    REPEAT: Only SOME business owners. Very few

    You DEFEND - 60% tax cuts for Trump and a privileged class that already has a major loophole .... a group of business owners which is a tiny fraction of business owners ... and a tiny tax cut for everyone else.

    Trump campaigned on a 60% tax cut for himself ... with typical bullshit that his tax plan would .... wait for it .... "cost me a fortune" (LOL)

    2) "Corporate taxes paid by pension funds -- on workers -- that Trump is already exempt from"

    what are you referring to?

    FIFTH REPEAT, Worker funds have more investable assets than the entire NYSE ... but THOSE business owners pay the tax that Trump is ALREADY loopholed outr of ... plus get ZERO tax cuts (as business owners)

    Personal income taxes?

    CORPORATE TAXES PAID BY PENSION FUNDS,
    See Part 2

  • Michael Hihn||

    Part 2 of 2

    3) "That Trump pays ANY corporate income taxes (see #2)"

    he pays personal income tax instead.

    There you go. All those insults and stalking ... and you never heard of double taxation of corporate profits!

    1) Corporate profits are taxed to the corporation,
    2) then taxed AGAIN when the remaining profits are merely distributed to owners
    3) Trump is loopholed out of #1

    To simplify, $100 of profits or wages.
    GM owner: -35% corporate income tax = $65
    -(say) 15% personal income tax = $55.25 (at retirement)

    Trump: 0% corporate income tax =$100
    15% personal tax = $85

    Wage employee: 20% ax rate - $80

    After tax
    Trump (tiny % of owners)- $85
    Vast majority of owners – 55.25
    Wage employer - $80

    Also, while $15 million is a lot more plausible, you still haven't explained it. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm asking for you to walk through the calculations that led you to the number.

    Above may be clearer. From 35% to 0%

    r.
    Trump keeps $85 as a privileged owner
    You $55.25 as an investor/ownere (direct or pension fund)
    You keep $80 as a worker, or
    You help pay for Trump's loopholes.

  • BambiB||

    Did I miss something here? Didn't the tax forms released show $38 million in taxes being paid on $150 million income? While that's not the top rate, it's a substantially higher percentage than most Hitlery voters EVER pay.

    In fact, considering that more than 40% of Americans pay no net taxes, 25% is a pretty good sized chunk.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Did I miss something here?

    That's mostly on his corporate tax loophole, plus the additional tax cut of 60% for himself that he campaigned on.

    Didn't the tax forms released show $38 million in taxes being paid on $150 million income?

    Yes, but taxes are NOT figured on gross income, This is FUN so I'll explain it. Using the $150 was PART of the bullshit on Maddow's show, The rest is complicated but the said he paid only 4.5% without the Alternate Minimum Tax which he wanted to repeal. But ....

    The actual return showed that -- with the Alternative Minimum, to keep rich folks from taking too many loopholes, his tax rate was ..... wait for it ... 115% Looks like a good reason to at least SEVERELY rework it, eh?

    Without the AMT his rate was 16.7% of TAXABLE income -- not 4.5% of a bullshit number.

  • Mr. Dyslexic||

    One more time for the lying aggressor. THE EXEMPTION FROM THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX, as explained here.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6794915

    (emphasis added for the morally crippled)

    These projections of yourself onto others is very obtuse, vain, and quite frankly unhealthy.

  • Michael Hihn||

    These projections of yourself onto others is very obtuse, vain, and quite frankly unhealthy.

    Self-defense of aggression you self-righteouns cocksucker. (that was the same thing)

  • SomeGuy||

    the level of triggered and butt hurt you always post is insane.

  • Michael Hihn||

    the level of triggered and butt hurt you always post is insane.

    1) It's ridicule,
    2) The victim of aggression determines the defense
    3) I've suffered over 20 assaults on two different pages.

    As you'll see at this link/
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6797029

    1) He has NO idea of the taxes he defends so aggressively.
    2) I say "Corporate taxes paid by pension funds.." He ask "Personal taxes?"
    3) Repeating the same question 5-8 times is harassment - especially when so clueless.
    4) I understand you have tribal loyalties. But try to control them.

    And I'm the one who apologized. Deeply..
    Anything else?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    This bullying is the kind of aggression that fascists always resort to.

  • Michael Hihn||

    When you get to high school you'll learn the difference between aggression and a supported argument For example, it's not fascism when a prosecutor presents arguments and evidence.
    Anything else?.

  • kbolino||

    When Michael Hihn does all the things he accuses other people of doing, it's perfectly acceptable because he is pure of heart and noble of intent, unlike all of us brutal savages who are too stupid to appreciate his wisdom.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Self awareness is like an unenlarged prostate or the ability to appreciate modern music: Michael Hihn hasn't been within shouting distance of it in the better part of a century.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Great minds discuss ideas.
    Average minds discuss events.
    Small Minds discuss people.

    12-year-olds call names, to feel manly,
    to offset their tiny penises,
    and tiny hands.

  • Michael Hihn||

    When Michael Hihn does all the things he accuses other people of doing, it's perfectly acceptable

    Where?

    See the "#" in every message header? That's a link to the specific comment.
    Right click on it. Now it's in your clipboard.
    Then paste it into a message showing me as the aggressor.

  • Michael Hihn||

    kbolino, called pout as a liar .... fails
    (And I'm the one who apologized)

  • WakaWaka||

    A Judge Napolitano piece would be nice

  • Longtobefree||

    Sadly, the only question that will be asked is "how quickly will you rule Trump himself to be unconstitutional?"

  • CooterBrown||

    Why do you hate the uterus? Scale of 1 to 10, how do you rate The Audacity of Hope? Boxers or briefs?

  • colorblindkid||

    The Dems are going to ignore important relevant issues and only ask about tranny bathrooms and waayycists because they are useless.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    That's because trannies being able to whichever bathroom they want is way more important than question involving judicial deference, the commerce clause, and due process (whatever that is). You'd understand this if you were more woke. /prog

  • colorblindkid||

    I just read something that they are apparently going to focus on campaign finance and money in politics. They are so fucking stupid they deserve to have the little power they have.

  • Zeb||

    I fucking hate that shit. It's just disgusting how many people are willing to trample free press and speech because they don't want the "wrong" sort of people and organizations involved in politics.

  • kbolino||

    Everybody has the unalienable right to vote for the pre-approved policies and candidates. All the the benefits of universal suffrage (equality, good feelings, self congratulation) and none of the downsides (icky opinions, disagreements, consequences).

  • Jerryskids||

    My big question would involve Auer/Chevron deference. Is this a big load of bullshit or what and how fast are you going to overturn it if the fake news sites manage to bullshit the public as to how far down the slippery slope we've slid?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    The American people deserve to hear what Judge Gorsuch has to say about these crucial constitutional issues. The Senate Judiciary Committee should ask him about them during his confirmation hearings next week.

    But I'm not gonna hold my breathe waiting for them to ask those questions. That would mean that the confirmation hearing was something other than kabuki theater.

  • rmodiz||

    Could someone also ask him about Lincoln's "apple of gold in a silver frame" and if defending the Constitution doesn't include securing fundamental rights such as "Life", thereby forbidding capital punishment? Thanks.

  • Michael Hihn||

    and if defending the Constitution doesn't include securing fundamental rights such as "Life," thereby forbidding capital punishment

    Or the equally fundamental right to Liberty which, by definition, protects abortion rights (within limits, since NO rights can be absolute, also by definition).

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Watch the TDS really go off the rails starting Monday.

  • Rhywun||

    None of those rights appear anywhere in the text of the Constitution.

    Will they find a right for any alien to enter the country?

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    Only aliens with an average household income of 150k or up.

    The "Making America Great Again (by stealing the smarties) Act"

  • simplybe||

    It would probably be a good idea idea if members of Congress and Judiciary were required to carry a copy of Black's Law dictionary. All words have meaning as defined by that book not what they want them to mean on any given day.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Republicans can't do that, because so many reject the definition of unalienable. And perhaps equal.

  • Diane Merriam||

    Statists and authoritarians of every stripe do that.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Statists and authoritarians of every stripe do that

    Yep. Including Ron/Rand Paul and all; extreme pro-lifers.

  • JayMan||

    "that book," (Black's Law Dictionary) doesn't define words. It states, at the top of Section A, "Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient and Modern." In other words, it defines not words but "terms and phrases" used in a language used in Jurisprudence (legal procedures). It is a language usually referred to as legalese. The words spoken in our everyday intercourse don't have the same meaning in legalese, even though they may look and sound the same. That's the reason for Black's Law Dictionary

    "All words have meaning as defined by that book..." True when one is interacting in a legal setting but not true for the colloquial usage; that is if you accept that "terms and phrases" means words.

    BTW, there is a court, accessable to every man and woman in this land, that is superior to the U.S. Supreme Court. Make use of it and SCOTUS becomes irrelevant. SCOTUS is the supreme court of the U.S. government, not the people.

  • Michael Hihn||

    "that book," (Black's Law Dictionary) doesn't define words

    What's this?

    http://thelawdictionary.org/unalienable/

    Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.
    What is UNALIENABLE?
    Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.

    ====

    SCOTUS is the supreme court of the U.S. government, not the people.

    The people ratified the Constitution .,.., and the Court. It's called "consent of the governed." And the Court's rulings are, in appropriate cases, the law of the land. But only for the past 214 years.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

  • JayMan||

    Michael Hihn

    What's this?

    http://thelawdictionary.org/unalienable/

    Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.
    What is UNALIENABLE?
    Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.

    Yes, it looks like a word, to you and me, that we would use in everyday language; however, as i wrote previously, Section A states clearly: "Definitions of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient and Modern." [emphasis mine] Terms and Phrases are not words. Even though a word that we may use in our common language is also used in the legal language and may even have the same general meaning, it is, nevertheless, a "term or phrase" when used in "legalese."
    This is one reason why, in many cases, people get slaughtered at court. They think everyone is speaking English when, in reality, they are the only one speaking English and the court can interpret anything they say in whatever way it wants or disregard them entirely because it just can't understand them.

    Also, how does Marbury v Madison show the jurisdiction of the court over the people?
    Do you know the difference between a "superior court" and an "inferior court?"

  • Michael Hihn||

    What is UNALIENABLE?
    Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.


    Yes, it looks like a word, to you and me

    With what looks like a defintion to me. What do you see, a pineapple?

    SCOTUS is the supreme court of the U.S. government, not the people.

    The people ratified the Constitution .,.., and the Court. It's called "consent of the governed." And the Court's rulings are, in appropriate cases, the law of the land. But only for the past 214 year

    Also, how does Marbury v Madison show the jurisdiction of the court over the people?

    How does falsely quoting my statement excuse your ignorance of the Court's role and jurisdiction ... a power delegated by the people, which is a core founding principle of our nation?

    D you know the difference between a "superior court" and an "inferior court?"

    Why do you ask? Has nothing at all to do with Marbury v Madison, which established judicial review ... and judicial review further demolishes your bizarre claim regarding SCOTUS

    That's two mind games and one distortion. And by your "logic," the government is the government of the government, not of the people. There was no ratification of the Constitution. That's Fake News from the newspapers and Town Criers of the day. You're done,

  • JayMan||

    You're absolutely correct. You're totally clueless and i'm done playing with a statist such as you. Not worth the time.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Hey, dumbfuck, JayMan!

    Here's the web archive of my published writing. Check the ones on Taxes, Healtcare and Governance ... see if I;m a "statist" ... or just called you out as a blowhard. (lol)

    http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

  • Diane Merriam||

    Well, actually, no it wasn't. The STATES ratified the Constitution, and not by popular vote.

  • Michael Hihn||

    (laughing) States don;t ratify anything. It was the Constitutional Convention -- PEOPLE (trust me on that).

    Now you and the other wacko can say they did not represent the people ... and that the entire thing is a fraud because it was NOT the "consent of the governed"

    But I'll take the Founders over you. And this was their commitment.

    That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,

    States are "governed?"

    Then I decided to search the constitution itself , but .... sonuvagun ... right at he beginning!!

    We the People of the United States

    Are you not aware that we were a fully functioning nation well before the Constitution?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Very well done, Damon. But why ignore abortion. Is it because Reason panders to the Paulista Cult?. Like Ron's shameless denial (and abuse) of the 9th and 14th Amendments?

    For example, the fetal child's unalienable right to Life is precisely equal to the woman's unalienable right to Liberty. Indeed, no rights can be absolute, simply because NO unalienable right can be denied or disparaged for any reason., That includes Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness and, of course, all the others.

    But that's "merely the definition of unalienable" for well over 200 years ... and as we all know, Jefferson and the Founders were all illiterate, plus bought off by the great, great, great grandfather of George Soros,

    And it's Ron, of course, who brags of sponsoring a bill that would have denied SCOTUS from hearing ANY appeals to DOMA. Homosexuals would have been be the first group forbidden from defending their fundamental rights since ... slavery. But Paul has always promoted the southern racist version of States Rights, which his cult is conned into believing is Federalism.

  • kbolino||

    Where's Trump's $15 billion/year tax loophole, Michael? You still haven't justified that number you pulled out of your ass.

  • Michael Hihn||

    MORE AGGRESSION! (tone and boldface in defense of repeated aggression by a serial stalker -- punishing me since I publicly humiliated him weeks ago, like here (lol))

    Where's Trump's $15 billion/year tax loophole, Michael? You still haven't justified that number you pulled out of your ass.

    One more time, psycho , THE EXEMPTION FROM THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX, which I explained to you here.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6794915

    (emphasis added for the morally crippled)

    He already gets a huge loophole. Equal to (probably) $15 billion that year

    According to what calculation?

    EXEMPT FROM THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX.

    While responding to your TOTAL FUCKUP immediately above. My emphasis again (yawn)

    "Anybody can own a corporation and their income will be taxed according to the corporate income schedule"

    Then, after your bullying. I repeated it here.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6795201

    Trump campaigned on a 60% tax cut for himself

    (Trump's businesses are "pass-through" corporations, EXEMPT FROM THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX ... which is why .... (laughing) .... his tax form is a ****1040****.. If you don't even know that a 1040 is PERSONAL income tax then ... you obviously never paid the income tax! Still in high school?)

    Watch him keep assaulting me.

  • kbolino||

    You can keep whining but you haven't answered the question. You keep shifting the goalposts, calling people names, and making accusations but you can't justify the number.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Watch him keep assaulting me.

    You can keep whining but you haven't answered the question.

    In boldface ... twice .,.. in what you respond to here ... plus links to proof that it had been answered.

    Now, the eighth fuckup -- you state that Trump had NO REVENUES!
    Where did the profits come from ... a printing press in his basement?

  • kbolino||

    R = The revenue from Trump's pass-through corporations

    0 < R < $15 billion

    I = Taxable income from Trump's pass-through corporations if they were taxed as ordinary corporations

    0 < I < R < $15 billion

    r = 0.38 = the maximum corporate income tax rate
    T = r * I = the maximum corporate income tax Trump's pass-through corporations could possibly have to pay if they were not pass-through

    0 < T < I < R < $15 billion

    L = the alleged windfall Trump is enjoying from taking advantage of loopholes, which cannot possibly exceed the maximum tax his corporations could be on the hook to pay

    0 < L < T < I < R < $15 billion

  • kbolino||

    I mean seriously, how can anyone be getting a $15 billion tax loophole when they don't even revenues, never mind taxable income, of $15 billion?

    So what that he's "exempt" from corporate income tax? Personal income tax is still income tax. You keep acting like I don't know what I'm talking about but that's just because you put words in my mouth. I'm not half as stupid as you keep accusing me of being.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I mean seriously, how can anyone be getting a $15 billion tax loophole when they don't even revenues, never mind taxable income, of $15 billion?

    (laughing hysterically) The $15 billion would be the corporate tax ... not the income.
    Now my stalker says Trump had NO REVENUES

    You're now up to EIGHT fuckups on your aggressions

  • kbolino||

    There are numbers between 0 and $15 billion. Even if Trump's pass-through corporations did have $15 billion in revenue, and they don't, then the taxes would be less than that, even if absolutely no "loopholes" were taken advantage of, and so any loopholes could not possibly be worth more than that. This is basic math.

    Try again.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You have since revealed that you have no knowledge of the double taxation of corporate profits, which explains your confusion. Astounding on a libertarian website, but explains how Trump was able to con you and so many others. As we see here:

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6797029

    Meanwhile, I have publicly apologized, "deeply" for my typo -- awaiting yours -- which you've already refused. So I'm not only smarter. I have more class.

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    The angst!

    Where's my eyeliner?

  • Texasmotiv||

    Your inalienable rights can be disparaged/abridged if you violate someone else's rights (i.e. If you murder someone, you can be punished by being put in jail). You have a right to liberty to the extent that your liberty doesn't trample on another's. Do you really think that your right to liberty includes wantonly endangerment of another's life? With abortion there is no situation in which your liberty doesn't end in the loss of life.

    If you recognize the 'fetus' as a person with rights you can't really defend your position.

    Before you say it:
    -I read what inalienable means.
    -I don't care for Ron Paul, and the concept of equal freedom existed before Ron Paul was ever born.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Your inalienable rights can be disparaged/abridged if you violate someone else's rights

    And ....

    You have a right to liberty to the extent that your liberty doesn't trample on another's. Do you really think that your right to liberty includes wantonly endangerment of another's life? With abortion there is no situation in which your liberty doesn't end in the loss of life.

    What part of "equal" confuses you?

    If you recognize the 'fetus' as a person with rights you can't really defend your position.

    (smirk) What part of :"equal": confuses you?

    Before you say it:
    -I read what inalienable means.

    But don't understand what "equal" means?
    Google "conflicting rights" which most of us learned in high school

  • Texasmotiv||

    You sidestepped my question.

    The act of aborting is an initiation of aggression against the 'person'. So your equal right to liberty is infringing upon the rights of the other person.

    It's like cutting the cord of someone mountain climbing with you, knowing full well that they will fall to their death because you don't feel like carrying them up or sharing supplies with them. To make it worse you brought the person up there in the first place as a by product of your decisions.

    I don't have the equal liberty to drive on the sidewalk either. Doing something that will predictably end in death is wanton endangerment and my right to liberty can be infringed.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You sidestepped my question.

    Only if you suffer denial.

    The act of aborting is an initiation of aggression against the 'person'. So your equal right to liberty is infringing upon the rights of the other person.

    So is yours. And it's not MY equal right. I cited Jefferson and the Founders. You cite … nothing but platitudes.

    It's like cutting the cord of someone mountain climbing with you, knowing full well that they will fall to their death because you don't feel like carrying them up or sharing supplies with them.

    Which FUNDAMENTAL right is infringed by forbidding the cord cut? Where is the conflict of such rights?

    I don't have the equal liberty to drive on the sidewalk either.

    Which is WHY your analogy sucks.

    Doing something that will predictably end in death is wanton endangerment and my right to liberty can be infringed.

    FUCK anyone else's right to liberty! Over my dead body.
    BOTH extremes on this issue are trying to have it all THEIR way when TWO rights are in conflict – and impose their diktat by force.

    Extreme Pro-lifers deny the woman's right to Liberty ... which they also call a "God-given" right (only when it's convenient). How many TEMPORARY rights did God bestow on us, and for how long?
    Extreme pro-choicers deny the fetal child's right to Life.

    Neither has a leg to stand on, constitutionally. Both are statists.

  • Texasmotiv||

    I agree that both sides see no middle ground. What I am trying to parse out is your solution for resolving the conflict. Please be more specific and refute my arguments with counter arguments, not just quips.

    I do believe you have an argument, I'd like to hear it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I do believe you have an argument, I'd like to hear it.

    Since you've asked. :)

    All unalienable rights are absolute, thus neither can outrank another. Conflicting rights, colloquially, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. The nose tip is the boundary between two sovereign rights.

    Only the court can arbitrate the conflict, as a check against possible conflicts by the other branches. They are obliged to establish a boundary the BEST defends BOTH rights EQUALLY.

    Two abortion decisions. Roe then Casey, show an evolution in both thought and science. Roe used trimesters as a FIRM measurement that would MEAN viability. But that's not true for all fetuses… and viability can be accelerated buy science. So Casey stated viability AND INCLUDED artificial means, which left the door open to advances in incubators or any subsequent replacement.

    That was accurate in science, but allowing for individual fetuses is yet unsettled. Around 20 years ago, I served on two successive LP Platform Committees, proposing a solution which allowed the fetus itself to "control" it. The Court defines viability but never DEFENDED it. At a certain point, ban the abortionist and require a life birth. The fetus will survive or die ... based upon itself. Sovereign control. It was defeated because the party was then (shamefully) extreme pro-choice.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Show us on the doll where Ron Paul touched you, Mikey.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Great minds discuss ideas.
    Average minds discuss events.
    Small Minds discuss people.

    12-year-olds call names, to feel manly,
    to offset their tiny penises,
    and tiny hands.

    Others stand up, in self-defense, defiant toward aggression - confident of their manhood,
    or womanhood.

    Guess which ones run some tiny patch of the world. And which ones llive a life filed with raging hatred, shaking their fists into the wind)

    (posted in defense of cyber-bully aggression)

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    '12-year-olds call names,' said they guy who called me a cyber-bully...

  • Michael Hihn||

    '12-year-olds call names,' said they guy who called me a cyber-bully..

    I now add "self-righteous" cyber-bully

    "Show us on the doll where Ron Paul touched you, Mikey."

    (smirk)

  • A Cynic's Guide to Zen||

    Thread Hihnfection at critical levels, all. FYI.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Great minds discuss ideas.
    Average minds discuss events.
    Small Minds discuss people.

    12-year-olds call names, to feel manly,
    to offset their tiny penises,
    and tiny hands.

    Others stand up, in self-defense, defiant toward aggression - confident of their manhood,
    or womanhood.

    Guess which ones run some tiny patch of the world. And which ones llive a life filed with raging hatred, shaking their fists into the wind)

    (posted in defense of cyber-bully aggression)

  • kbolino||

    So, that makes you a small-minded person who's 12 years old. Good to know.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Hihn is much, much closer to 12^2 than he is to 12, but advanced senility is a cast-iron sumbitch.

  • kbolino||

    To be fair, he's not really much closer to 144, since he long ago stopped counting the millenia.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Great minds discuss ideas.
    Average minds discuss events.
    Small Minds discuss people.

    12-year-olds call names, to feel manly,
    to offset their tiny penises,
    and tiny hands.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Great minds discuss ideas.
    Average minds discuss events.
    Small Minds discuss people.

    12-year-olds call names, to feel manly,
    to offset their tiny penises,
    and tiny hands.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    To get to the other side?

    A zebra with a sunburn?

    42?

  • WakaWaka||

    'White nationalist'
    Def: People I don't like

    If you overuse a term enough times it becomes meaningless

  • WakaWaka||

    Because your a white nationalist, of course

  • Michael Hihn||

    Why are there so many white nationalists on a libertarian site?

    Ron Paul enables them, by replacing federalism with the southern racist definition of states rights,

    Ron says it was "Rogue Judges" who overturned DOMA ..., which means that SCOTUS had NO power to defend individual rights from abuse by the other two branches So Ron denies ... THREE co-equal branches, balance of power, checks and balances, the 9th and 14th Amendments.

    States Rights, as first used by the KKK is a "justification:" for denying court rulings they disagree with. Most famous example may be Little Rock Arkansas in 1957. Governor Faubus said he was defending his state;s voters .. to activate his state militia and use armed force to keep 9 black kids from registering at Little Rock High School, Eisenhower sent federal troops, ordered to use force if necessary, and prevailed.

    Ron Paul stands precisely with Faubus.

  • Damned||

    Overflow from Breitbart.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Same thing. Google Ron Paul with Infowars, or with Alex Jones. Paul's wacky conspiracy theories on the judiciary, enable all the conspiracists,, including the Trumpsters in this commentariat.

  • WakaWaka||

    Unenumerated rights. Otherwise known as 'shit we just make up'. Why not an unenumerated right to 'healthcare'? Oh, I see, it only applies to things you like. Well, guess what, it also works for things you don't like.

    There are rights that are absent from the constitution. Pretty sure there's already a way to get those rights in the Constitution through the amendment process

  • ||

    Pretty sure there's already a way to get those rights in the Constitution through the amendment process

    At *least* one way. It's quite arguable that the right to privacy was already/previously secured by the 1st, 4th, and 5th Am. or that those do more to create and secure the right than the 9th ever could. But then you don't get to do fun stuff pretend that women have a right to publicly-funded abortions.

  • Michael Hihn||

    u don't get to do fun stuff pretend that women have a right to publicly-funded abortions.

    You're THAT eager to be brainwashed. AND as ignorant as he is on the 9th Amendment.?

  • Michael Hihn||

    FUCK the founders, says Waka Waka

    Unenumerated rights. Otherwise known as 'shit we just make up'.

    (snicker)

    There are rights that are absent from the constitution. Pretty sure there's already a way to get those rights in the Constitution through the amendment process

    (lol) The 9th Amendment did that, within the Bill of Rights.

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

    So what are they? Those rights?
    And WHY do you say the Founders were all stupid ... compared with you .. who apparently never even took US History!

    Why not an unenumerated right to 'healthcare'?

    Two reasons.
    1) SCOTUS has not made such a ruling.
    2) There can be no right that must be provided by somebody else, unless you define doctors, nurses and their staff as ... slaves ... and we forbid slavery.

  • Zeb||

    Positive "rights" are a problem, but the amendment process can also be used to remove legal protection of natural rights or create new positive rights. And it's majority rule.
    There are plenty of problems with judicial review, but at least there is opportunity to protect individual rights even if it runs contrary to public opinion.

  • WakaWaka||

    The amendment process is 'super majority' rule

  • Zeb||

    Yes, that's true. Which saves us from a lot of bad ideas. But is also why it is unlikely to be used to expand the protection of the sort of individual rights that libertarians favor.

    One way or another, people are just making shit up. So I'll take it where I can get it: if courts limit government power and expand individual rights, that's good.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The amendment process is 'super majority' rule

    So how did you fuck up that the 9th Amendment is over 200 years old ... but you never heard of it?

  • Michael Hihn||

    There are plenty of problems with judicial review, but at least there is opportunity to protect individual rights even if it runs contrary to public opinion.

    Consider an extreme as a hypothetical. A President and a majority in both houses of Congress are elected, each one campaigning that they would ignore the Constitution if they felt it was inappropriate to the bill or matter at hand? What happens?

  • Diane Merriam||

    Depends. If you're Andrew Jackson or Trump, you ignore the Court and do what you want anyway. If you're Bill Clinton, you have your people try to "find a way around the Constitution." If you're FDR, you threaten to expand the Court with new justices. If you're Nixon, you sic the FBI on your opponents. If you're ...

    Almost every politician these days wants to find ways around the parts of the Constitution that they don't like and wants to read new meanings into other parts to make it a "living" document that agrees with their position.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You failed -- I think . Hard to tell with all the extraneous babble.
    But the government I described would be fully legitimates ... and as the Founders intended.

    You've read your own meaning into it twice on this page (that I've seen)

  • american socialist||

    Michael hihn seems unhinged

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Great minds discuss ideas.
    Average minds discuss events.
    Small Minds discuss people.

    12-year-olds call names, to feel manly,
    to offset their tiny penises,
    and tiny hands.

    Others stand up, in self-defense, defiant toward aggression - confident of their manhood,
    or womanhood.

    Guess which ones run some tiny patch of the world. And which ones llive a life filed with raging hatred, shaking their fists into the wind)

    (posted in defense of cyber-bully aggression)

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Please note that the most raging commenter here, by far, is the one who originated that particular slab of platitudinous tripe.

  • kbolino||

    Hihn's projection is epic. It makes Tony look like an honest and ingenuous interlocutor.

  • Michael Hihn||

    kbolino
    Where's Trump's $15 billion/year tax loophole, Michael? You still haven't justified that number you pulled out of your ass.

    One more time for the lying stalker, THE EXEMPTION FROM THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX, which I explained to you here.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6794915

    (emphasis added)

    He already gets a huge loophole. Equal to (probably) $15 billion that year

    According to what calculation?

    EXEMPT FROM THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX

    While responding to your TOTAL FUCKUP My emphasis again (yawn)

    "Anybody can own a corporation and their income will be taxed according to the corporate income schedule"

    Then, after your bullying. I repeated it here.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6795201

    (Trump's business are "pass-through" corporations, EXEMPT FROM THE CORPORATE INCOME TAX ... which is why .... (laughing hysterically) .... the released form is a ****1040****.. So if you don't even know that a 1040 is PERSONAL income tax then ... you obviously never paid the income tax! Still in high school?)

    Watch him keep assaulting me

    Hihn's projection is epic

    (snicker)
    (My attitude and boldface in defense of repeated aggression by a serial stalker -- since he was publicly humiliated weeks ago, like these two)

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    '12-year-olds call names,' said he guy who called kbolino a lying stalker...

  • kbolino||

    He doesn't have $15 billion in yearly revenue, how could he possibly be enjoying a $15 billion loophole?

    Maybe if you stopped frothing at the mouth you could learn how to count.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Fourth question: explain the FYTW clause and why we ordinary mortals can't see it no matter how closely we read the Constitution.

  • Michael Hihn||

    FYTW?

    It's POSSIBLE you MAY have missed it, like Waka Waka did here:
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/03.....nt_6796517

    Or a Court Ruling -- like on the 9th Amendment that nobody seems to know about.

  • Anti_Govt_Rebel||

    Another Topic to explore with Gorsuch:
    Do you believe the President has the authority to take the country to war on his own prerogative, without consulting Congress?
    Would any war waged by the US be legal without an express declaration by Congress?

  • Lowen||

    Ok folks here's the truth. This confirmation will be delayed beyond all delays because the idiots know President Trump's Immigration Executive Order will pass with flying colors as it should have already if Judge Gorsuch is confirmed and this is the sad game being played with our safety.

    In addition, what is not being mentioned in the media is this fact. Both the Hawaii and Maryland Judges that temporarily struck this lawful Order down stated this:

    "If we had a different President the Order would have passed"

  • Michael Hihn||

    "If we had a different President the Order would have passed"

    Do you spend mich time at Breitbart and Infowars?

  • damikesc||

    It's reality. The judge's have basically said that a different President would have not had any issues with it.

    When the "rule of law" is based on who judges like, then it's time for judges to be hanging from lamp posts.

    I didn't vote for the idiot in HI. I have zero evidence that he is terribly intelligent on any foreign policy questions.

  • Michael Hihn||

    WRONG! The decisions are all based on Trump's hate-filled Islamophia.
    Rudy Guliani has said IN PUBLIC that Trump asked for his help in how to legally ban Muslims.
    So, the dumbass, restricts the same countries Obama did, NONE of which have been a source if terrorism here.

    The ONLY way he could have shown security was his focus was to ,.... focus on the countries that ACTUALLY export terrorosm.

    When the "rule of law" is based on who judges like, then it's time for judges to be hanging from lamp posts

    It's the fucking constitution you And you just proved you're a fucking thug.
    Now you go TOTAL batshit crazy.

    I didn't vote for the idiot in HI.
  • damikesc||

    On foreign policy, no, the judiciary shouldn't have any voice in any part of it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    On foreign policy, no, the judiciary shouldn't have any voice in any part of it.

    FUCK the constituiution, as you've shown just above ... even it was about foreign policy, which it's not.

    The authoritarian mind defends an authoritarian President. Stay with Fox, Breitbart and Infowars for your trolling,
    This is a libertarian website.

  • Damned||

    This is a libertarian website.

    Infested with Republican commenters and authors pretending to be libertarian

  • Michael Hihn||

    (smile)

  • Damned||

    These are meaningless. No answer provided by Gorsuch is relevant, since they are asking for an opinion.

    He'll be confirmed, the sooner the better.

    All I want is the Democrats filibuster and delay confirmation as long as they can, and if possible force McConnell to do away with the filibuster

  • chadadan||

    But why ignore abortion. Is it because Reason panders to the Paulista Cult?. Like Ron's shameless denial (and abuse) of the 9th and 14th Amendments? http://htpratique.com/league-o.....-au-monde/

  • Michael Hihn||

    Paulista cult follower quotes me without attrition. Responds with link to "League of Legends" website.

    But why ignore abortion. Is it because Reason panders to the Paulista Cult?. Like Ron's shameless denial (and abuse) of the 9th and 14th Amendments?

    Pay attention. I'll dumb it down for ya.

    1) The 9th Amendment forbids ALL levels of government to "deny or disparage" ALL fundamental rights unenumerated by the Constitution. Facsist Paul says the 10th Amendment's unenumerated POWERS aalow the states to "deny and disparage" those same rights protected by the 9th.

    2) Thus his cult of snowflakes believe states cn declare powers that have NEVER been delegated .... that government power is superior to individual rights .. shits on the notion of delegated powers ... and would leave us defenseless against government.

    3) The 14th Amendment doubles down against state's abuse of rights.

    "Unalienable rights" are ALL equally absolute. That includes Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness ... and all other such rights.

    Because Life and Liberty are BOTH absolute, BOTH are precisely equal, NEITHER can trump the other.
    Thus BOTH extremes on abortion seek to impose it ALL their way -- through government force -- in blatant defiance of out rights "endowed by a Creator,"

    Extreme pro-lifers are the worst hypocrites of all ... defying the Will of God ... in the Name of God.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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