Randy Barnett: Abortion, Guns, and the Future of the Supreme Court
The leading libertarian legal theorist talks about worrying trends at the Supreme Court as a conservative majority takes hold.

As the most momentous Supreme Court term in recent memory comes to a close, are things better or worse for libertarians?
Georgetown Law's Randy Barnett is arguably the most important and influential libertarian legal scholar walking the planet today. Over the years, he's argued against Obamacare and for medical marijuana in front of the Supreme Court. In books like Restoring the Lost Constitution and The Structure of Liberty, he's developed the concept of what he calls "judicial engagement," or the idea that judges need to be more forceful in striking down laws that restrict rights guaranteed by the Constitution. At the same time, he's a powerful critic of liberal judicial activism where judges effectively create law out of ideological preference and he pushes back against conservative majoritarianism, which holds that legislatures can basically do whatever they want.
In a nearly two-hour-long conversation, I talk with Barnett about the Dobbs decision that struck down a women's right to an abortion, the Bruen decision that struck down a New York state law limiting the ability of gun owners to carry weapons, and other major rulings. We talk about the general direction of the Supreme Court and whether it's headed in a moreâor lessâlibertarian direction. And we discuss the treatment of Ilya Shapiro, the former Cato staffer who was going to join Barnett at Georgetown until a controversy erupted over one of Shapiro's tweets.
Today's sponsor:
- The Reason Rundown with Peter Suderman. Free minds. Free markets. Big stories. That's The Reason Rundown. End the week with concise, thought-provoking stories from the journalists at Reason, the magazine of logic, not legends; coherence, not contradictions. Hosted by Features Editor Peter Suderman, each week he talks to a single Reason journalist about a single big story. Subscribe today.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
preference and he pushes back against conservative majoritarianism, which holds that legislatures can basically do whatever they want.
I'm not sure I would put that as the hallmark of "conservative majoritarianism". Another interpretation is "Legislatures can do what they want when it's not in direct conflict with the Constitution or Bill of Rights, and we like to stick to a reasonably tight reading of said Constitution, enumerated powers etc."
For instance, the recent ruling against New York in the carry case was CLEARLY the exact opposite of this simplistic characterization. The conservative majority explicitly said that the legislature could NOT do whatever it wanted because that violated a constutional right. In the case of Roe, the conservative majority said that there is no clear constitutional right to an abortion, so that question should be handled by the states.
Did they spend 2 hours being wrong about those things?
Who the fck spends 2 hours listening to a podcast?
I'm earning 85 dollars/h to complete some work on a home computer. I not at all believed that it can be possible but my close friend earning $25k only within four (07-dky) weeks simply doing this top task as well as she has satisfied me to join.
Check further details by reaching this link.......... http://payout11.tk
I'll listen to Tim Pool and he routinely exceeds 2 hrs.
He's also not comically wrong on topics a ton.
"...this simplistic characterization [of conservatives]"
As opposed to endless nuance and strained efforts at understanding leftists ("progressives" and "liberals"). Fucking typical of this sorry-ass publication.
You didn't expect an honest response from a Reason article did you? They just claim anything they want, even when it's the opposite of the truth.
This is a credible accusation of the current conservative majority of SCOTUS.
Sorry, but the leading libertarian complaining about several leading Conservatives doesn't fit the math UNLESS you already decided. And as the say in Logic class, when a Nazi eats spaghetti he doesn't eat it qua Nazi.
I took it as a counter to Robert Bork, who famously said, "In wide areas of life, majorities are entitled to rule, if they wish, simply because they are majorities." Chevron deference is another symptom.
Way too many judges break all ambiguities in the government's favor. That's why Bruen shocked so many lefties; they are way too used to getting their way, hang the constitution.
"In wide areas of life, majorities are entitled to rule, if they wish, simply because they are majorities."
I do not read Bork as celebrating so much as observing the reality that Constitutional limits on the Federal government, and even broadly viewed enumerated rights still only apply to a limited portion of human action. with all the rest being within the purview of State police power.
Which means we should be seeking to cultivate a reticent and restrained society - lest their individual desires for self actuation be turned upon the rest of the populace.
Sadly our modern progressive leftist culture is anything but.
I actually have made $30,030 simply in 5 weeks straightforwardly running part-time from my apartment. Immediately whilst Iâve misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into exhausted and fortunately I located this pinnacle on line task & with this I am in (res-55) a function to reap lots immediately thru my home. Everybody is capable of get this first-rate career & can benefit greater bucks online going this article.
.
>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
That's the only path to liberty: you need to change the culture first.
Trying to achieve it legislatively or judicially is bound to fail, because people will pick and choose those parts of liberty they like without accepting the responsibility that is necessary to make it work.
But Bork has to contend with the fact that they are not always entitled which MUST mean that when they do it cannot be simply because they are the majority. Right?
3DSculpLab provides professional online manufacturing services for on-demand production of prototypes, individual products & short-run production across various manufacturing technologies, and all available thru a single online platform.
https://www.3dsculplab.xyz/
>>whether it's headed in a moreâor lessâlibertarian direction.
wait 20 years and ask the babies who don't get aborted this summer what they think about liberty
Seriously? You couldn't run this out another 2 min. 20 seconds?
That's the way this country was founded. That's why states have state constitutions and state supreme courts.
Much as control freaks and authoritarians like Barnett think they can impose libertarianism at the business end of a gun from the federal bench, this is a federation of states in which each member state has wide latitude to choose its government and laws.
One can imagine many objections to Randy Barnett's approach, but "control freak" and "authoritarian"? That's quite a take.
Barnett makes the same mistake many libertarians make: they think that if they just impose individual liberty from the top down, then we'll have a libertarian country. He sees a conflict between what he calls a "collective vision of 'we the people'" and a republican vision. He associates the first with "majoritarianism". But you cannot have a libertarian society unless the overwhelming majority of the people inside a society voluntarily consent to that kind of government in the first place.
Like any of the major political ideologies in the US, Barnett thinks his ideology is the cat's pajamas for everybody, and he is going to find a way of imposing it on the country, by somehow reading it into the Constitution. That just isn't going to work. Probably 80% of Americans don't want to live in the kind of society he dreams of. He does not have the "consent of the governed". Worse, the powerful judiciary he needs to make that happen will just be hijacked by other authoritarians.
The original vision of the US, as a union of largely independent states with freedom of movement, free trade, and a common defense was a good one, and it is the only one that can ever work for liberty. Most of the states in such a union will trample on liberty and individual rights. But at least a few states can demonstrate the advantages of libertarian governance. Furthermore, the existence of socialist, progressive, and theocratic states means that people who want that kind of life will stay the hell away from the libertarian states. If things go well, the libertarian states can gradually convert others by example. This is not just a nice idea, it's the way liberty and the enlightenment spread through Europe.
Having individual liberties guaranteed in all 50 states would be nice and, of course, very libertarian. But if you follow Barnett's approach, you will accomplish the opposite. Let's not forget that socialists also have individual liberty as their ultimate objective, but trying to realize it, they always end up with a totalitarian society.
"Barnett makes the same mistake many libertarians make: they think that if they just impose individual liberty from the top down, then we'll have a libertarian country. He sees a conflict between what he calls a "collective vision of 'we the people'" and a republican vision. He associates the first with "majoritarianism". But you cannot have a libertarian society unless the overwhelming majority of the people inside a society voluntarily consent to that kind of government in the first place."
Agreed. Barnett see liberty as a matter of imposing outcomes. That is - at best - a problematic approach.
It is well past time to start judging libertarianism by what it has accomplished and not by what it purports to believe.
You should know that the judicial branch doesn't really have any guns nor can enforce any laws (heck, they hardly have any government protection given how arland is behaving by choosing to not enforce laws about intimidating judges. So, it's hard to see how Barnett thinks "they can impose libertarianism at the business end of a gun".
Further, I can't see calling Barnett a "control freak and authoritarian" because he supports the courts striking down more laws as unconstitutional; that's pro-freedom and pro-protection of our liberties. No, our country wasn't founded where "legislatures can do whatever they want", they can do whatever they want provided they don't tread on our lives, liberty or property including the freedoms (both enumerated and unenumerated) specified in the Constitution. Otherwise, we may hold a vote about seizing all YOUR property and money, for the state. The politicians are good at making boogeymen to hang for problems the politicians created.
Yes it was, constrained only by a few explicit federal requirements (a republican form of government etc.).
The executive branch enforces court rulings, and the executive branch has guns.
You already do: you take half my earnings and redistribute them.
If you create a society in which you grant most of the liberties of a libertarian society but shift the costs of the choices people make to others, you have created a communist society.
Abolishing government infringements on individual liberties only works if individuals actually bear the cost of their choices themselves. That is what libertarianism means: individual liberty AND individual responsibility.
NO, as Gordon Wood shows repeatedly, the Federal government was founded by Whigs who were rebelling against State majoritarianism.
The states were overrun by unqualified backwoods yokels, in most states.
It's amazing how much damage that orange moron did to this country in 4 years by appointing those three idiots to the court. Hopefully he is wearing clothes to match his hair soon.
Reason, please get Barnett or Root to do an article on the unenumerated rights that are retained by the people, as stated in the ninth amendment.
If I were a senator, I'd be asking judicial nominees to list some of those unenumerated rights, to get more public scrutiny of how the political class sees our unenumerated rights. I want to know what they are myself. And I'd like the public to start discussing them.
While I'm happy with Dobbs, I would have been happier if the court ruled that the common law regarding abortion at the founding, is one of those rights. But abortion isn't the best right to defend in court as an unenumerated right. I'd say our unenumerated rights to free markets would be better to defend as an unenumerated right, because it would upend so much government regulation of commerce that makes us poorer, but politicians and their rich friends richer.
The political class doesn't want to discuss our unenumerated rights, because they don't want us to have them. Let them explain why they don't exist in practice, but are specified in the constitution. Seems to me these unenumerated rights, are potentially a great way to get our freedoms back.
To echo another recent story, let the politicians explain why we don't have a right to put a little library on our property for our neighbors to use. When they try to prohibit them, they usually give up, because they look like such nanny busybodies butting into the affairs of others who voluntarily interact.
The political class doesn't want to discuss our unenumerated rights, because they don't want us to have them.
It's a Three Card Monte. They want you to believe it's there, but will never allow you to find it.
He has written an entire book on it. I think it's wrong, and so do most legal scholars.
However, if Barnett were right, it would be a disaster. You can't simultaneously guarantee people vast individual liberties while at the same time having a state that provides a massive social safety net and uses redistribution to finance it. Such a system of government is not libertarian in the least, and it will never evolve to become libertarian.
" You can't simultaneously guarantee people vast individual liberties while at the same time having a state that provides a massive social safety net and uses redistribution to finance it."
As libertarians were well aware when I was first introduced to the movement, back in the 70's, you can't have open borders and massive social safety net financed by redistribution, either. Your modern libertarian seems to have forgotten about issues like path dependence, and that some parts of the libertarian program necessarily have to precede others.
Look, the social welfare pyramid started out with 14 supporting the single beneficiary at the top, It is now about 4 and 3 is the crash point. abortion, homosexuality, and a host of anti-family causes are in place and will cause disaster. Forget being libertarian and just use your head đ
Here you go "libertarains", the "states" - you know, the governments you all idolize - are about to go after those who go out of state for an abortion. Clear solution to the problem is a fence and border crossings and no women of child bearing age can cross without a priest or holy roller minister accompanying and signing for them.
"The National Association of Christian Lawmakers, an antiabortion organization led by Republican state legislators, has begun working with the authors of the Texas abortion ban to explore model legislation that would restrict people from crossing state lines for abortions, said Texas state representative Tom Oliverson (R), the charter chair of the groupâs national legislative council.
âJust because you jump across a state line doesnât mean your home state doesnât have jurisdiction,â said Peter Breen, vice president and senior counsel for the Thomas More Society. âItâs not a free abortion card when you drive across the state line.â
You cool with this exercise of "states rights"?
Joe, you echo fake talking points of the Democrats. From what I've heard from Democrats, is they're willing to tax their constituents, to fly women to their state for a state provided abortion. And they're also talking about other legal workarounds to provide safe abortions to those who want them. Further, it's my understanding that state and local governments cannot prevent you from travelling across state lines, and if you commit a federal crime crossing state lines, then you can be arrested by the Feds who have jurisdiction for inter-state crimes.
You should know, that any such law preventing an adult from crossing state lines, would be struck down by the SCOTUS. I'd say the freedom to travel around the country (at your expense) is one of our unenumerated rights to which the 9th amendment refers.
If anything what these sorts of discussed laws are intending to address is organization like Planted Barrenhood from establishing depots where people will assemble and then be bused across state lines to an abortion mill/baby part factory then bused back.
Otherwise there simply being no conceivable way to police people crossing state lines by their own means for whatever purposes they desire.
I hope Barnett is right about Dobbs not posing a threat to Griswold and progeny. I'm also mindful that not too long ago a libertarian legal scholar predicted in Reason that less than 5000 people in the US would die of COVID.
I listened to the podcast. Prof. Barnett made a lot of sense.
Sitewok is the top building materials companies in India. Kindly visit https://sitewok.com/ to know more.