MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

5 Questions for SCOTUS Nominee Brett Kavanaugh

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

C-SPANC-SPANThe Senate Judiciary Committee will hold confirmation hearings this week on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to serve as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh, 53, is a respected federal judge with many admirers in conservative legal circles. But there are still a number of unanswered questions when it comes to his jurisprudence. Here are five matters that I would like to hear Kavanaugh address as he faces the Senate Judiciary Committee in the coming days.

1. Congressional Power

The use of recreational marijuana is now legal in multiple states. Yet Congress continues to ban marijuana at 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 Gonzales v. Raich (2005), despite the fact that the medical marijuana at issue in that dispute was both grown and consumed entirely within the state of California. Do you believe 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

In February 2017, the Trump administration told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that President Trump's first executive order banning travelers from certain majority-Muslim countries was beyond the reach of "even limited judicial review" because 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." Do you agree that a president's executive orders should get a free pass from judicial review if the orders are purportedly connected to the president's "formal national-security judgment"? In your opinion, how deferential must the federal courts be to the executive branch when the president claims to be acting in the name of national security?

3. Unenumerated Rights

The Constitution lists various 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." Over the years, the Supreme Court has recognized and protected a number of such unenumerated rights, including the right to privacy, the right of parents to educate their children in private schools, and the right to gay marriage. In your view, is the Supreme Court ever justified in securing unenumerated rights from government infringement? And if not, should the Supreme Court overturn its applicable precedents and stop recognizing the unwritten right to privacy?

4. Judicial Restraint

In your 2011 dissent in Seven-Sky v. Holder, you argued that the federal courts should have abstained from ruling on the constitutional merits of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because "by waiting, we would respect the bedrock principle of judicial restraint." The courts should be "cautious," you wrote, "about prematurely or unnecessarily rejecting the Government's Commerce Clause argument" in defense of Obamacare. "This legislation was enacted," you continued, "after a high-profile and vigorous national debate. Courts must afford great respect to that legislative effort and should be wary of upending it." Please explain your criteria for determining precisely when the judiciary is supposed to "afford great respect" to lawmakers and thus avoid "upending" their "legislative effort."

5. Searches and Seizures

In 2015, you wrote that the National Security Agency's bulk metadata collection program "is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment." Is that still your view today? Do you continue to believe that the Fourth Amendment suffers no violation when the federal government engages in the wholesale warrantless collection of every Americans' telephone record metadata?

The American people deserve to hear what Brett Kavanaugh has to say about these crucial constitutional issues. The members of the Senate Judiciary Committee should ask him about them during his SCOTUS confirmation hearings this week.

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.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    5 Questions for SCOTUS Nominee Don Willett.

    *sigh*

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Number 3 will blow your asshole!

  • Left ± Right > Hihn||

    Dammit I just got that fixed!

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Damnit, I told you a heart-shaped butthole is something to be proud of.

  • Left ± Right > Hihn||

    It went from heart-shaped to diamond-shaped. I decided to get it fixed before it metastasized into a spade, or even the horror that is a club-shaped butthole.

  • Aloysious||

    I don't care what shape it is, I just want to know if it has been bleached.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Techically, but it's hard to tell through the blood.

  • Bob Meyer||

    Those are excellent questions which is why I doubt that a single one of them will be asked.

    Who, among the Senators asking questions, would be the least bit interested in the actual philosophy of Kavanaugh?

    The question of unenumerated rights has enormous implications. Bork's view that because the rights weren't listed, the 9th Amendment has no more significance than an ink spot, seems to be the predominant view today. It's hard to imagine any justice dealing with this or the "Privileges and Immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment although Clarence Thomas, at least, seems to be aware that the "Slaughterhouse Cases" were wrongly decided. However, even he might let "stare decisis" (Latin for "when we screw up, it's forever") overcome his better judgment.

  • ImanAzol||

    Silly me. I assumed that "libertarians" would remember the part of the Constitution that states no political test may be given as a requirement of office.

    Asking a candidate how he would rule is a political test.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Silly me.

    Indeed!

    I assumed that "libertarians" would remember

    More likely that SOME "conservatives" would invent a Constitution out of thin air, to "justify" their authoritarian compulsions.

    the Constitution that states no political test may be given as a requirement of office.

    There is no such statement. There is no religious test allowed, which the authoritarian right of course denies and/or misrepresents.

  • Eddy||

    Who is Kavanaugh's competition?

    If K is rejected and the Dems win back the Senate, then Trump and the Dem leaders might play Let's Make a Deal and get some kind of Souter clone - or the seat may remain empty as Dems refuse to confirm anyone Trump sends down.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    If K is rejected and the Dems win back the Senate

    0.0% chance of this happening. Team Blue has 25 of 33 seats just to defend.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Nicolae Ceausescu, The Antichoice Communist of Romania worshipped by Nixon and Ford, prophesied that "Socialism will die only when pears fall from apple trees." Shortly thereafter he was tried and executed with his Evita clone. Today a Libertarian Party flourishes in Romania where women enjoy individual rights similar to those enforced in Canada.
    Today's DemoGOP mixed economy kleptocracy is simply the weakened shell of looter socialism. It too is gonna have to go.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Good questions indeed.

    In your view, what answers would justify a 'no' vote on his nomination? Singly or taken jointly across whichever ones, i.e., push the aggregate, past a 'nope' line?

  • Eddy||

    "Yes, Senator, I killed and ate two babies. Not one, but two."

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    IT WAS THE SAME CHRISTMAS EVE. THAT'S BASICALLY ONLY ONE INCIDENT.

  • Eddy||

    Ah, yes, counselor, your point is well-taken. Sustained.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Why are you all so determined to minimize Kavanaugh's accomplishments?

    I swear, this place is literally becoming Jacobin.

  • Eddy||

    Technically I was answering what it would take for me to want a no vote on his nomination, and my remark was that he'd have to kill and eat not one but two babies.

    I wasn't suggesting that non-baby-killing is the only thing to recommend him (though it helps in the context of Roe).

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    And there you go again- not only misrepresenting my position to make it sound as if I opposed Kavanaugh's lengthy and well-documented achievements in infantophagia, but furthermore going so far as to imply that he should be disqualified because of said victories in the unending war against overpopulation!

    All I can say is that if you and your unmalthusiastic friends want to conspire to drop a population bomb on this wonderful country of ours, you can go plan it in the comments section of HuffPo or Salon or some other pinko rag. Leave this website unstained by your sentimental infant apologia.

  • Eddy||

    You're weird, and that's coming from *me.*

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    a low, disembodied purring that seems to come from all directions fills the comment section

  • Hank Phillips||

    Note for foreign readers: "Eddy" is the sockpuppet alias of Planned Parenthood Shooter and Warrior For The Babies Robert Lewis Dear on the prison library computer.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Incorrect. Eddy is the sockpuppet of rejected Sesame Street character Reverend Thumper, pro-life proselytizer who convinces Elmo to not complete xer transitioning until after xer baby is born in a cancelled Very Special Episode.

    Hank Phillips, by contrast, is the result of an MIT research program which sought to improve understanding of the human mind by replicating the effects of a massive overdose of LSD on the best simulation of a human brain the computer technology of 1993 could create.

  • ImanAzol||

    Silly me. I assumed that "libertarians" would remember the part of the Constitution that states no political test may be given as a requirement of office.

    Asking a candidate how he would rule is a political test.

  • John Galt Jr||

    Silly me.

    Indeed!

    I assumed that "libertarians" would remember

    More likely that SOME "conservatives" would invent a Constitution out of thin air, to "justify" their authoritarian compulsions.

    the Constitution that states no political test may be given as a requirement of office.

    There is no such statement. There is no religious test allowed, which the authoritarian right of course denies and/or misrepresents.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Remember that Gorsuch was not a rock star on paper before getting on the SCOTUS. The USA is lucky to have Gorsuch on the court.

    Kananaugh is not a Gorsuch, but unless he has some glaring issues with his legal positions, give him a chance. He came from the same list as Gorsuch was on. Republicans waited to long to evaluate him for the appointment and to get someone in, if they reject him.

    There is a

  • loveconstitution1789||

    < 1% chance that Democrats could cut a Republican majority in the Senate.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    On Number 1:

    The current DOJ stance on federal criminal jurisdiction (and not just for drug cases) is that if any tools used to commit the crime once upon a time traveled in interstate commerce, that is enough for federal criminal jurisdiction to attach.

    So the marijuana never crossed state line, what about the garden/farm tools used to grow it? The vehicles used to transport it?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Fuel? Electricity? Grease and hydraulic oil? Food? Water from rain storms?

  • Eddy||

  • PoorSocialistLosertarian||

    Racist!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    SIV hardest hit

  • David Nolan||

    Once upon a time, in a land far away, the 9th Amendment was called :"the libertarian amendment."
    Then the spiritual founder of the alt-right began stifling and choking libertarianism. So, thanks mostly to Ron Paul, the libertarian label is now rejected by 91% of libertarians (per Cato survey)

    Many trace the roots of libertarianism to Barry Goldwater, who famously said that the Moral Majority was a severe threat to his party, which came to pass. And that "all Christians should give Jerry Falwell a kick in the ass." That was the 1970s, when Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were openly defending homosexuals, two decades before Clinton shamefully signed both DOMA and DADT, and nearly four decades before Obama "evolved." When libertarians, in all parties, still had balls on individual liberty. And America's Greatness was still evolving.

    Back to the opening sentence.

  • Left ± Right > Hihn||

    Exactly! So someone's right to their life does not mean someone else doesn't have a right to own a gun. Someone's right to speak freely and idiotically on the internet does not overrule someone else's right to defend themselves against baseless attacks. Someone's right to have an abortion does not mean that the fetus has no right to its own life.

    The 9th amendment is clearly the most libertarian of all amendments, since it provides a strong stance against "positive" rights that provide extra privileges to favored groups.

  • David Nolan||

    When two absolute rights are in conflict, neither can be ignored. That's what absolute means. As we learned in high school, only SCOTUS can resolve such a conflict, as a check against the other two branches creating conflicts. The Judiciary is obliged to find a solution -- the boundary -- which best defends both rights equally.

    There is no free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater. The boundary is cannot.
    And your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. The boundary is the tip of my nose.

    As with most issues, this triggers the authoritarians in both extremes, right and the Each fights to have its own prefered right be absolute, imposed by government force, rejecting the core principle of Equal, Unalienable and.or God-Given Rights, when convenient to their agenda.

    The fallacy is obvious. but they seem unable to cope with two rights being absolute. It seems to explode their brains. They either deny the meaning of unalienable. Or falsely claim that such conflicts cannot exist, which is like denying the earth moves around the sun. Such is the tribalism, both right and left -- which are now fewer than 40% of Americans,.and still shrinking

    Left - Right = Zero.
    As now supported by over 60% of Americans.
    Today's Silent Majority,

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Hihn.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Negative rights don't conflict, that's why, historically, Libertarians have rejected positive "rights", because they're the moral/ethical equivalent of allowing division by zero in math; Once you accept them, you can 'prove' anything.

  • David Nolan||

    Life and liberty conflct.in abortion.
    And elsewhere.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Except there is no right to kill someone because they're an inconvenience to you.

    Particularly when YOU'RE the one that forced them to inconvenience you.

    See, Michael, if you see two rights that appear to 'conflict' chances are that one, or both, of them isn't a 'right' at all.

  • David Nolan||

    You say Life and Liberty are not rights, The Founders say the are both rights and precisely equal. Plus many others, also equal. (unalienable)
    The defense (off individual rights) rests,

  • Ken Shultz||

    It was easier to stand up for individual freedom when people could remember when the Nazis were on the march and it wasn't clear if we would win the Cold War.

    I don't want to talk about dialectical materialism--and I'm not talking about the way things really are. I'm talking about the way people perceive things.

    People seem to strive to become the caricatures their opponents make them out to be. Call conservatives "rednecks" long enough, and they'll start listening to country music and watching NASCAR. Likewise with progressives and their signals. Why has the purchase price of hybrid models commanded a premium over the savings in gasoline for so long?

    It was easier for people to understand why you supported free speech, capitalism, etc. when the bad guys were totalitarian communists--and to get any more bona fide anti-communist than Reagan and Goldwater, you'd have to regularly attend John Birch Society meetings.

    Some people on the right try to treat Islam like a totalitarian menace. One of the problems with that is that they're usually using it as an argument against freedom--pro-invasion, pro-surveillance, anti-First Amendment, anti-immigration, etc. The communists were the perfect bad guys for libertarians. It'll probably never be that easy to define ourselves against something in non-libertarian minds again.

  • Ken Shultz||

    One question for libertarians who oppose confirming Kavanaugh:

    1) If the Democrats take the senate, do you expect to get a better nominee?

    Opportunity cost is the highest foregone alternative, and I don't see why I should assume that the alternative to Kavanaugh will be better than Kavanaugh.

    Choosing to lose $5 is smart when the alternative is losing $10.

    IF IF IF the Democrats take the senate, they will not confirm anyone better than Kavanaugh on gun rights, among other things. They'll keep shooting down nominees that are better than Kavanaugh on gun rights until a Democrat takes the White House or they lose control of the senate, whichever comes first.

    I'd expect Trump to cave on nominating someone better than Kavanaugh just to be able to put his own stamp on the court--rather than persist on supporting nominees with any support for gun rights.

    Kavanaugh isn't my first choice, but he's the value of your opportunity cost if you go against him and roll the dice on the Republicans holding the senate.

  • ohlookMarketthugs||

    Oh look, a racist who wants others to suffer for his beliefs.

  • PoorSocialistLosertarian||

    If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a lacist, I mean, racist.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Is this supposed to be facetious?

    I can't tell anymore.

  • Left ± Right > Hihn||

    We now have three -tarians (OpenBordersLiberal, LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal, PoorSocialistLoser) and four Tonys (unprefaced, Red [that's me], Yellow, and some sort of fishpeopleTony).

    Everything is parody and nothing aches.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Huh, haven't seen that new Tony.

    I figured the PoorSocialistLoser one was just Tulpa.

  • Left ± Right > Hihn||

    fishpeopleTony posted like once and hasn't been seen since, but I say he counts.

  • newshutz||

    All of us are Tulpa socks, except for the spoofer that posts as Tulpa

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    1) If the Democrats take the senate, do you expect to get a better nominee?

    No, but I don't expect the Democrats to win 27 of the 33 elections necessary to take the Senate.

  • Ken Shultz||

    There's the rub.

    I've been looking real close at the statistics for the House. Somebody show me a breakdown of what's necessary for the Democrats to take the Senate.

    I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd love to see a link for those stats.

    I can't hardly cite "Get to Da Chippah" to my friends, now, can I?

    "Some guy in a chat room told you wha?!"

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    https://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-election/

    35 (not 33 as I said, due to two special elections) seats up for election this year. 24 Democrats, 2 "Independents" (Angus King and Bernie Sanders, both of whom generally caucus with Democrats), and 9 Republicans.

    Of the races the people who run this site think are safe for the incumbent, 4 are GOP, and for some reason Ted Cruz in Texas isn't one of them. I have a hard time thinking Ted is in jeopardy. There are only 9 GOP seats up for election, so the five "safe" wins plus any 3 more leaves the Senate with a tie, and Mike Pence is your tiebreaker.

    Their projections after the elections are 44 Democrats, 49 GOP and 7 unsure. If the results match that, Team Blue would have to sweep those seven to take the Senate.

  • Ken Shultz||

    This is according to Vox:

    "Democrats will still need to win most or all of West Virginia, North Dakota, Missouri, Montana, Indiana, and Florida — and then win the Republican-held seats in Nevada, Arizona, and maybe even Tennessee or Texas — in order to win the 51 seats they need."

    http://www.vox.com/policy-and-.....ons-senate

    If that's the way it is, then they've got a steep hill to climb.

    Maybe they should reject Kavanaugh.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The Democrats do not need the Senate to neuter Pres. Trump. Taking the House would be adequate.

    He would continue to have a clear path on judicial nominations, but there's little along that line the Democrats could not address by enlarging the Supreme Court (when next they control the House, Senate, and presidency) and a few circuits courts of appeal.

    The investigations and subpoenas issued by the House would tie Pres. Trump -- and nearly everyone who works or worked with him -- in knots for the remainder of his presidency.

  • creech||

    Surely, though, the Dems would play nice and work across the aisle as St. John did?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Then Congress better get going by enlarging the Supreme Court before November. 25 more originalist SCOTUS justices should do the trick, right? You'd have no problems if the GOP grew the Supreme Court to suit their purposes, right??

    Of course not, you're just a partisan hack shitbag.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The republican controlled senate would not vote to add more seats to judiciary.

    Even if it did, Trump could veto that legislation.

    All moot anyway, democrats will be losing more seats in election 2018.

  • Eddy||

    It's possible to roll the dice and hold out for a candidate who not only says the right things about *some* issues (like Chevron deference) but about *all* issues. I think it would be too risky, but, then, I thought Hillary would get elected, so maybe I'm not as much of an expert on political possibilities as I might wish to be.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It will be fine. Trump will get to replace thomas, RBG, breyer over the next 6.5 years.

  • David Nolan||

    If the Democrats take the senate, do you expect to get a better nominee?

    Do you expect one that's necessarily worse? On the libertarian matrix -- fiscally conservative and socially liberal -- Kavanaugh fails on social issues and is unknown on fiscal issues.

    A Dem nominee would likely be good on personal issues -- and also unknown on fiscal issues.

    Looks like a tie for now, on keeping government out of both economic and personal issues. But, as always, we see left and right seeking to impose their own preference on everyone. With no voice for individual liberty -- nor for most Americans.

  • Jerryskids||

    1. I think courts are correct in following precedent up to a point, it's a matter of Chesterton's Fence assuming that prior courts were just as wise and judicious as the current court and if they decided the case this way they had good reason to do so. If you're going to revisit the issue you're essentially going to have to either re-litigate Wickard v Filburn or keep splitting those legal hairs finer and finer to explain why the principles in this case are not the same as the principles in that case. At some point (and I think we're already well past that point) the hairs are split so fine that you can find precedent to support any argument you care to make as to why the court should decide a case one way or the other and multiple precedents are no better than no precedent in providing a guide to future rulings. Which makes the law useless in its primary purpose of drawing a line between what is legal and what is not; who the hell knows until after the court has spoken? Give precedence its proper respect but not one iota more. And Wickard's way past its expiration date.

  • Jerryskids||

    2. The Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government, they have no business deferring to either the Legislative or the Executive branch in areas where there's a dispute between legislative and executive functions. In this particular area, Congress has shirked its responsibility in granting the President these "broad grants of statutory authority" and it's incumbent on the judicial branch to defend the Constitution by making Congress eat its goddamn spinach and quit feeding it to the dog.

    3. There are no unenumerated rights as far as the government and the Constitution is concerned, if the Constitution doesn't give the government the right then the government doesn't have the right. Roe v Wade's "emanations and penumbras" was bullshit - it stood the Constitution on its head by insinuating the only rights the citizenry has are those granted by the Constitution. Same thing with the Tinker case where SCOTUS ruled that wearing a black armband was a protected free speech issue - how about I can wear what I want to wear because I have a right to wear what I want to wear and you don't twist logic so damn hard to find a justification in the Constitution that says I have a right to wear what I want to wear? The Constitution doesn't grant the government the right to tell me what I can and cannot wear and that should be the end of it.

  • Jerryskids||

    4. It's the Court's job to say whether a law is Constitutional or not, whether it's a "good" law or a "bad" law doesn't enter into it. "Judicial restraint" as it's described here sounds an awful lot to me like shirking your duty. Deferring to the legislature sounds to me like "let's let this play out, see how it goes and we'll step in if it looks like it's getting sideways". No, there are rules and following the rules is a Good Thing, not following the rules is a Bad Thing. Is stealing an unlawful act? Sure. Is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving child? Most people I think would say "No", but even if it's not wrong it's still an unlawful act. The Court's job isn't to determine right and wrong, it's to determine lawful and unlawful. You start saying that stealing a loaf of bread isn't really stealing if it's being stolen to feed a starving child and there's the slippery slope you've been warned about staying away from.

    5. The third-party doctrine is both a legal and moral abomination and needs to be killed, dismembered, and have its head stuck on a pike in the public square. That "third party" is not a third party, they are acting as my agent for the purposes of retaining certain of my records, to that extent they are me. Might as well do away with search warrants on the premise that we're not searching you, we're just searching your pants and pants have no rights, or we're not searching your house, we're just searching the stuff in your house.

  • chipper me timbers||

    ^^ Well done

  • Hank Phillips||

    A right is a moral claim to freedom of action. Political power is the rate at which a government can convert the disobedient into cadavers. Power is thus the time derivative of deadly force while rights water the flourishing of life. Surely this distinction is not lost--even on Jerry Lewis and Frank Fontaine muppets?

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    If a right were a "moral claim to freedom of action," no right would ever be of practical use. In the U.S. system, by design, a right is a power vested in an individual to stay the hand of government, and enforced by a power greater than government, which is the sovereign power of the people themselves. Set up that way, your rights can actually be vindicated, and you get to make use of them. Much better.

  • David Nolan||

    Government cannot have rights. Only people have rights.
    Governments has powers, as an if delegated by the people, which is how a just government performs its legitimate function (to defend individual rights).

  • Mongo||

    6) You see a tortoise lying on its back in the hot sun struggling to right itself. What do you do?

  • Eddy||

    7) What is your name?

    8) What is your quest?

    9) What is the air-speed velocity of a swallow?

  • Eddy||

    10) Who is John Galt?

    11) How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

  • Jerryskids||

    12) What difference, at this point, does it make?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    What do you mean? A laden or an unladen swallow?

  • Eddy||

    "I don't know...AAAAAAAH!"

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    African or European swallow?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Quickly drive to the nearest USAF black site, hijack an ultra-secret experimental modified C-130 air defense laser platform, and fly back until LoS on the inconvenienced testudinid is acquired, allowing me to precisely direct 500 MW onto his helpless form.

    Better to just get it over with as quickly and efficiently as possible. We wouldn't want him to suffer.

  • Hank Phillips||

    7) Ask "What's a tortoise?"

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    No point, Gary Johnson didn't make it past the preliminary hearings.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    No 2nd Amendment questions?

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Like all good Trump supporters and libertarians I spent the last 23 hours onBreitbart trying not to backslide to Reagan on this infamous Leftist Day of Tyranny. Therefore, my question to Judge Kavanaugh deals with free speech and it's necessary limits. Specifically, what method of execution does he think appropriate for Colin Kaepernick? Should we go medieval on his ass or get all faggy and modern and go for lethal injection? Your thoughts?

  • PoorSocialistLosertarian||

    Kaepernick is not only within is his rights, but should be encouraged to protest the USA and the capitalist imperialism it has given the world.

    While the USA was just in partnering with communists to defeat the Nazis, they were war criminals fighting against the brave freedom fighters of North Vietnam, as well as their cowboy diplomacy, but it was the lowest against North Vietnam.

    Not to mention the extreme disparity in wealth distribution, which, even when ignoring quality of life, is too much of an injustice to ignore.

    Why shouldn't the tax rate be 100% for anything over $350k? That's more than 10 times was I make in a year, anyway. Seems fair to me, and I'm sure Kaepernick agrees.

    Until these injustices are rectified, keep kneeling, Kaepernick.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Pfft... what kind of libertarian doesn't acknowledge all the good things that US bombs brought North Vietnam? And, personally, I think one penny of taxation on anyone who makes 350k and above is a sin against God and, more importantly, might inconvenience Donald Trump. Why don't you go live in Cuba or Venezuela and start a local chapter of ISIS like the rest of your Leftist trash?

  • PoorSocialistLosertarian||

    The failures of Cuba and Venezuela are due to bad luck and their dictatorial rule, and they say nothing about the quality of the economic policies of those nations, which are completely compatible with both socialism and a high quality of life.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Like I was saying... why don't you just move there? All Leftists love socialist dictators and third world countries. Please, socialist, we learned all we need to know about how socialism works in 1st world countries by applying the lessons of Venezuela— a third world country— to Western Europe and the United States. The evidence is in! Bernie Sanders will have us eating government-supplied rations out of sardine cans and filling the future gulags of Alaska with political prisoners. Yeah, no thanks on that, commie scum.

  • PoorSocialistLosertarian||

    Because I am the poor one, I am being exploited, so I shouldn't have to leave. Also, because the exploited wealth of the capitalists is concentrated here, it is more efficient for me to be a revolutionary for wealth equality by remaining here and changing the system from the inside, primarily through advancing the political strength and agenda of the Democrat Party, which shares many of our goals.

    When the time comes, I will be on the barricades with everyone else, including Bernie Sanders, who also knows a thing or two about fighting the bourgeoisie from the inside.

    But, by all means, when the time comes, if the bourgeoisie doesn't like it, they can leave, after they've paid the tab they owe for centuries of exploitation.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Whatever. Exploited people in the United States just need to stop complaining that they don't have the same guarantees that their socialist brethren in Western Europe enjoy. You know, like cradle-to-grave medical care and a guaranteed retirement income. The working class is far better off hoping that some day capitalists will give them money than advocating for their economic best interest. My God, you're mixed up.

  • PoorSocialistLosertarian||

    History shows us that the best way to improve our quality of life is through tireless political revolutionary petitioning of grievances.

    I mean, really, who's fortunate enough to afford medical care, much less live long enough to have Medicare and social security? No one I know. Certainly not me.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    No! History shows us that workers advance their interests by groveling before capitalists. Labor unions didn't give us 8 hour days, that's for sure. I'm sorry... I just don't think you are arguing in good faith and are using ridicule to advance your "arguments" Clearly history shows us that any movement towards a social democratic welfare state with generous worker benefits and a democratic stake in the means of production is a movement towards Josef Stalin and the gulags. i mean, come on, look at the state of Denmark and the terrible shape they are in— along with Venezuela and Cuba, of course, which goes without saying.

  • PoorSocialistLosertarian||

    Labor unions did, in fact, give us the 8 hour work day. And, by God, where do you think we'd be without that?

    Sometimes possibly working more than eight hours a day, that is for sure.

    Conditions in this country are already aptly described as wage slavery (no offense to any of my African brothers whose ancestors experienced classical slavery). It would be all the morso without the minimum wage, 40 hour work weeks, and overtime laws, all of which are the backbone of the lives of the 99%.

  • Left ± Right > Hihn||

    ...I can't tell if this thread is genius or retarded.

  • Aloysious||

    I can't tell if this thread is genius or retarded

    ...yes?

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Listen, the only thing that inhibits workers from enjoying a better life is the labor laws that prevent them from working more than 40 hours a week. That and those minimum wage laws, which have caused massive unemployment in Seattle and San Francisco where fascist liberals have enacted them. When I think of the better life that is going to be enjoyed by the average minimum wage worker when Judge Kavanaugh gets on the bench I can't help but tear up a bit.

  • PoorSocialistLosertarian||

    No, the only thing that's keeping them from having a better life is low taxes, which prevent us from giving a guaranteed income and free childcare for life, if they so choose wage slavery.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Please. Most of these worthless proletarians don't even pay any taxes. 53% of them, by golly.

  • PoorSocialistLosertarian||

    Well of course they're not supposed to pay taxes to pay for wealth redistribution. What would the point of that be?

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Come on, stupid. To pay for the bombs that liberate North Vietnam and Iraq. God, commies are dumb.

  • PoorSocialistLosertarian||

    The taxes that the proletariat pay (if any) should be offset by their basic income and welfare benefits, to make up for the centuries of exploitation by the bourgeoisie. That's why we need an extremely progressive tax system.

    After all, we provide the labor (the real, ultimate value) that makes everything work. Why should we pay taxes?

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off

  • Eddy||

    "...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." Over the years, the Supreme Court has recognized and protected a number of such unenumerated rights, including the right to privacy, the right of parents to educate their children in private schools, and the right to gay marriage. In your view, is the Supreme Court ever justified in securing unenumerated rights from government infringement? And if not, should the Supreme Court overturn its applicable precedents and stop recognizing the unwritten right to privacy?"

    I think there's an unexamined premise in there somewhere.

    If there are unenumerated rights "retained by the people" at the time the Constitution was adopted, or privileges and immunities of American citizenship recognized in 1868 (when the 14th Amendment was adopted), we still have to ask what those rights are.

    As far as enforcing rights against the states are concerned (there are 10th Amendment concerns where the feds are concerned), the unenumerated rights would be those recognized when the constitution or maybe the 14th Amendment were adopted. I'd list among those (cont.)

  • Eddy||

    -the right to a judicial remedy for injuries to person, property or reputation

    -the right to be free from monopolies

    -the right not to have your property divided up before it's forfeited

    -the right of conscientious objectors not to render military service in person

    -the right to bail in noncapital cases, and even in capital cases if there isn't enough evidence

    ...you see, these rights can find support in the American tradition, including declarations of rights contemporaneous with the Constitution, authoritative treatises, etc. And I'd say the right to parents to direct the upbringing of their children would be one of these rights in addition to what I've listed above.

    Where does the right to "sexual privacy" (humping and aborting) and the right to gay marriage fit in with an analysis of founding-era rights?

  • Eddy||

    Mind you, privacy is protected by several provisions of the constitution, like the 10th, 4th, etc. As I hinted above, the 10th Amendment would seem to protect private activities from federal meddling unless there's authority granted t meddle. But what's the basis for coming up with newly-invented rights and imposing them on the states by judicial decree?

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Guys,

    I just wanted to tell you how I appreciate the welcome i've Received from libertarians like you. It's good that you all share my love of free markets, fiscal conservatism, trade sanctions on China, and deficit spending (only to make America great again!) and, of course, the fantastic leadership of Donald Trump. Thank you.

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    Is this some sort of induction ritual libertarian Trump supporters put each other through? I don't get it.

  • Eddy||

    There's also the snipe hunt.

  • Sevo||

    So this has been hihnfected along with the "LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian" troll.
    Fuck off the both of you.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Pretty sure "LeaveTrumpAlone" is Amsoc/Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot/"commie kid".

    Last time I saw a comment from him he was already experimenting with usernames parodying right-wingers, and the politics/talking points seem about the same.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Makes sense. His writing level is pretty low. This other guy is more verbose and has a more distinct voice than LeaveTrumpAlone.

  • LeaveTrumpAloneLiberal-tarian||

    No, before I realized the intersectionality of my Trump support and my libertarianism I signed up here as Liberal-tarians for Life and before that as Liberal-tarians for Bashing the Skulls of The Gays In. Just so you'll know me from my past comments.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Mmm-hmm. Nice to see you too, 'Mursoc.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Anyone who's an advocate of judicial restraint should be immediately disqualified, IMHO.

    Fuck Kavanaugh!

  • Hank Phillips||

    Nothing about Roe v. Wade as published in the LP platform of 1972 and adopted by the Supreme Court 45 days after the votes were counted? The Dems, who see energy production the way the GOP views birth control, lost because of their pseudoscience against electric power. Now that the Libertarian Party gains enforcing women's individual right to be freed of forced labor seem threatened, the Dems insist on attacking the Second Amendment instead of helping the LP defend its legacy. Democratic Party Suicide seems a dubious counter to Republican Race Suicide eugenics.

  • DrZ||

    Five questions Kavanaugh should ask senators at the meeting:

    - Do you have a clue as to how the Constitution works?
    - Do you have any clues how free markets work?
    - Please explain to me the concept of individual liberty and how big government interferes with that concept.
    - Relating to question one, why do you not do your jobs in Congress and then expect the SC to make law?
    - Could any of you actually get a job as a used car salesman? Do you feel you are qualified?

  • ranrod||

    Depending on Federal Judges to Protect Your Gun Rights Is a Bad Plan.
    This is a really bad strategy.
    At its core, the Second Amendment exists as a limit on federal authority. When you sue in federal court, you do so in the hope that the federal government will limit itself.
    Remember, federal courts operate as part of the federal government, and federal judges are nothing more than politically connected lawyers drawing federal paychecks. When we keep these facts in mind, it becomes pretty obvious we shouldn't count on federal courts to limit federal power, and uphold or preserve the Second Amendment.
    James Madison gave us the blueprint. When the federal government commits unwarrantable acts, the Father of the Constitution didn't say "file a lawsuit in federal court." Madison advised a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union. Don't depend on politically connected lawyers to protect your right to keep and bear arms.

  • ranrod||

  • Kenrm||

    Matter #1: 1st prove to us all, that the marijuana is NOT leaving the states that allow it. Then I'll answer your question.
    Matter#2: If past presidents (Obama and Bush ll) had the authority and did regulate immigration, then yes THIS president also has the authority.
    Matter #3: Ahh, the 3 branches of power... a 2/3 vote by the Legislative Branch, that is signed into law by the Administrative Branch can supered the Judicial Branch. Duh!!!!
    Matter #4: Its called a 2/3's vote by the Legislative Branch.
    Matter #5: The phone companies do the record keeping anyways and it is ONLY the calls. It is NOT the content of the calls. What is the concern about what calls were made and to where? I clearly remember back in the days of landlines only, your long distance calls were itemized on your monthly phone bill. NOT once do I recall a concern back then about phone records. In fact people appreciated it especially when little Bobby was calling some adult phone line.

  • PG23COLO||

    Root's questions are not going to be asked and if they were, they wouldn't be answered, and if they were answered, the answers would not be meaningful or reliable.

    The law is what comes out of a judge's mouth, same as it has been for centuries and before that, the law was what the king said it was.

    These debates about judicial philosophy are exercises designed to gull the gullible.

    Doesn't matter what was written on parchment centuries ago, or what Congress writes electronically today. The law is what lawmakers, law enforcers, and law interpreters say it is.

  • Flinch||

    Normally I get serious about something like a SCOTUS nomination. But there's something that just doesn't seem right on this one...
    For that reason, I have only one question and it's regarding his hamburgers: does the nominee prefer mayo or mustard given the choice?

  • cheapmcmbelt||

    MCM Medium Rabbit Visetos Shoulder Tote In Black

    Shop www.mcmbackpacksoutletonline.com Cheap MCM Backpacks Outlet Store and Buy MCM Medium Rabbit Visetos Shoulder Tote In Black, Save Big Discount, Fast Delivery and Free Shipping...

    http://www.mcmbackpacksoutleto.....black.html

  • Jacky888||

    the 8 best bedroom air purifier airpurifiers-review

  • Jacky888||

    the 8 best canon zoom lens ef 24 70 lensreviewlab

  • Jacky888||

    bush spira b2 10 tablet ac101box frpbypassnow

  • Jacky888||

    universal drivers for mobile phones computer http://bestdriversforpc.com/ar.....r-computer

  • Jacky888||

    asus tablet frp bypass frpbypassnow

  • Jacky888||

    the 8 best aurora stuffed animals cat the8best

  • Jacky888||

    dji phantom 3 advanced firmware upgrade firmwareupdatepro

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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