Libertarian endorses Romney, rejoins republican party...

[billc]

Wayne Allyn Root was on the Michael Medved show today explaining that he has gone back to the republican party for this election because he realizes the threat obama poses to the future financial stability of the U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Allyn_Root

At the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, Root was eliminated on the fifth ballot in a bid for the presidential nomination, and subsequently became the vice presidential candidate alongside Libertarian nominee Bob Barr.

For those interested in libertarianism, keep in mind that if obama wins, he will have 2 or 3 supreme court justice nominees who will be making law, not deciding law, for the next 20 to 30 years. Forget privage property rights, gun rights, or freedom of religion, or any other libertarian values you might have. The high court will take huge chunks out of the already damaged constitution, on top of the financial ruin obama will inflict on the country.

 

[Makalakumu]

wayne allyn root was on the michael medved show today explaining that he has gone back to the republican party for this election because he realizes the threat obama poses to the future financial stability of the u.s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wayne_allyn_root



for those interested in libertarianism, keep in mind that if obama wins, he will have 2 or 3 supreme court justice nominees who will be making law, not deciding law, for the next 20 to 30 years. Forget privage property rights, gun rights, or freedom of religion, or any other libertarian values you might have. The high court will take huge chunks out of the already damaged constitution, on top of the financial ruin obama will inflict on the country.

lino

 

[Makalakumu]

Looks like my reply got lost into the ether. Anyway, Wayne Allen Root is/was a Libertarian In Name Only. A lot of people who call themselves Libertarian come to the party from the left and right and in general they don't get it right away. The right is generally better on economic freedoms, but worse on civil rights. The left is opposite. The philosophy of libertarianism opposes the initiation of force, which would oppose the institution of government itself because that is all government does. As I said in another thread, libertarian politics is self defense against state aggression.

Looking at it from that lens, WAR (what an apropos acronym :salute is simply another Statist supporting his own. Romney and Obama are like Macchu Picchu blocks. You can't slide paper between their positions. They represent one party and one candidate.

Obombney

 

[WC_lun]

So Bill, you got your fortune telling hat on. I've got a few questions. How do you know that two to three conservative justices are gonna die or retire from the bench? That's an awful lot for a four year period and for them to all to be conservatives, well that's pretty ...unlikely. Then how do you know what cases will actually make it through the courts to reach the Supreme Court? Finally, how do you know that two to three justices, confirmed by the congress to make sure they are up for the job, would abdicate thier oaths to subvert both law and constitution? That is amazing since you don't even know who those justices would be, Democratic president appointed or not...or is it some grand plot by Obama to make America socialist?

It is likely the president will replace one justice, perhaps two at the outside, and two is unlikely.

You know what, never mind. Your future telling skills didn't work when it came to Obamacare and Justice Roberts, who is a sitting justice, so why should I worry about those skills being accurate in the future and I don't want to read a bunch of linked biased articles.

 

[billc]

I don't know. I do know that obama will appoint liberal judges, not originalists. As Roberts shows, justices, appointed by republicans, who are supposed to be more faithful to the original interpretation of the constitution can wobble and go the other way. The liberal judges never waver. They always side for increasing the power of the federal government, and they are looking at foreign laws to justify their decisions on our constitution, something that is just nuts.
So, with obama, he will appoint hard left judges like elena kagan, who should have recused herself her work on the obamacare as solicitor general before obama made her a judge, who will support obama's agenda. With Romney, he will probably at worst try to appoint "moderate," judges who may disapoint us, the way Roberts just did. So, you have a sure thing with obama, hard left judges who will vote against gun rights, religious freedom, property rights, or, you have a chance, with Romney, of getting judges who understand the constitution and believe in its value.

If obama is re-elected, any judges he gets to appoint will be sure things. Romney, a good chance they will be "moderate," to actual originalists. The choice is coming up in November. If you are a libertarian by philosophy, you need to weigh that decision that will effect the law for the next 20 to 30 years.

By the way, Roberts surprised everyone, analysts on the left and the right.

 

[billc]

From answers.com on the ages of the current Justices...

Here's a list of the current Justices of the U.S. SupremeCourt:

Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, Jr. is 55 (DOB: 27 January, 1955).
Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia is 74 (DOB: 11 March, 1936).
Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy is 73 (DOB: 23 July, 1936).
Justice Clarence Thomas is 61 (DOB: 23 June, 1948).
Justice Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg is 77 (DOB: 15 March, 1933).
Justice Stephen Gerald Breyer is 71 (DOB: 14 August 1938).
Justice Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. is 59 (DOB: 1 April, 1950).
Justice Sonia Sotomayor is 56 (DOB: 25 June, 1954).
Justice Elena Kagan is 50 (DOB: 28 April, 1960).

R​

Kenedy and Scalia are close to 80. Scalia is an originalist who would be replaced by a liberal. Kenedy is the "swing," vote who would be replaced by a die hard liberal if obama is re-elected. I don't think it is too much guess work to think that men close to their 80's might not make it through another 4 years. Ginsberg and Breyer are also in their 70's, so a Romney in office would very likely put a "moderate," to originalist in their place, especially if the republicans can retake the Senate. This doesn't even take into account unknown health problems or accidents that may cause the replacement of a younger judge. We don't want obama putting any judges on the Supreme court or any more at the appellate level either.
​

 

[WC_lun]

Bill, respectfully your analysis is flawed. It is just as likley that Obama would put in a left leaning moderate. Also, there is absolutely no proof Obama would oulaw guns, take away religious freedoms, take away any property rights, turn the country socialist, or call the great speghetti monster out of the ether. Yes, it is likely if Obama is elected to a second term that he will be apointing probably one judge, but to attribute that to the curtailing of our rights is nothing more than scare tactics. If you want a little comfort that the sky is not falling, maybe go back and read some of the decisions and how the justices, conservative or progressive voted and the briefs they wrote. I know it is hard to imagine, but they actually try to do thier job, agree with thier ruling or not. Also, if a conservative majority was held, there are things that might happen that the majority of Americans do not agree with, like abortion banned and gay marriage outlawed, especially with Tea Party controlled state congresses being so abundant right now.

 

[billc]

Also, there is absolutely no proof Obama would oulaw guns, take away religious freedoms, take away any property rights,

Let's look at three of the biggest cases in the courts recent history that impact guns and property rights...


Saying that left wing judges appointed by obama will make decisions that go against property rights, for example the Kelo decision, or that one more liberal would have changed the recent handgun decision from Washington D.C. that affirmed that firearm ownership is an individual right isn't a scare tactic or a crazy thought. Obamacare was passed by one conservative judge putting his court and it's reputation before the constitution. The liberals on the court didn't vote against obamacare, they all voted for it. They all voted for the Kelo decision as well, the one that gave local, state and the federal government the right to take the property of one individual, and give it to another, if the government thought it could be used by the other individual to generate more tax revenue. Scare tactics, no, actual recent decisions yes. Remember, Kagan, who worked on obamacare as the solicitor general of the United States in the Obama administration did not recuse herself from that decision.

Here is the recent Kelo vs. New London decision...the lefties on the court...

About those property rights...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London#Majority_and_concurring_opinions

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[SUP][1][/SUP] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, ruled in favor of the City of New London. Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion setting out a more detailed standard for judicial review of economic development takings than that found in Stevens's majority opinion. In so doing, Justice Kennedy contributed to the Court's trend of turning minimum scrutiny—the idea that government policy need only bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose—into a fact-based test.

Not one liberal judge went the other way on this huge case...

Replace Souter, kennedy or ginsberg with an originalist and private property rights would be a lot safer...

The big gun control case...The District of Columbia vs. Heller...that affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, in federal enclaves.

The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy,Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.[SUP][44][/SUP]

Notice, not one of the liberal judges went for Heller, but they all went for stricter control.

Replace Scalia or Kennedy with a liberal justice and the right to keep and bear arms is no longer an individual right.

The obamacare decision...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius

Opinions on the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause

On the issue of whether the individual mandate fell within the powers allotted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause, no single opinion was joined by a majority of the Court. However, a majority of the Justices were of the opinion that the individual mandate did not fall under these powers.

• Chief Justice Roberts would have held that the individual mandate lay outside Congress' Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clause powers, distinguishing the mandate from the federal prohibition on marijuana cultivation and possession upheld in Gonzales v. Raich in part on the ground that the latter regulated economic activity, while the individual mandate penalizes economic inactivity.[SUP][36][/SUP]
• Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito would have held that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, for similar reasons.[SUP][37][/SUP]
• Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, would have held that the individual mandate lay within Congress' Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause powers.[SUP][38][/SUP]

[edit]

Note...

Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, would have held that the individual mandate lay within Congress' Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause powers.[SUP][38][/SUP]

All of the above are the liberal justices, two appointed by obama...Change sotomayor, kagan, ginsberg or breyer into an originalist like Scalia, Thomas or Alito, and the outcome of obamacare would be entirely different.


Also, note that not one liberal judge voted against the obamacare law, while one conservative judge voted for it. Change Scalia, and it wouldn't have mattered if Roberts voted against it.

Three huge decisions, and in each case the liberals appointed by obama, Sotomeyor, and Kagan, voted for bigger government, and the liberal judges in general, for Kelo for example, voted for bigger government interpretations of the constitution.

So no, I am just reacting to the reality of a possible two picks by obama for the supreme court and 20-30 years of decisions made by these judges as gun rights reappear before the court and new challenges to Kelo come before the court. Before you say Stare Decisis, keep in mind, that has no bearing when the court decides to change precedent. Think of Brown vs. the Board of Education. So no, past precedent is no protection in a left wing court.

 

[billc]

On the recent Citizens United case, which I agree with since I support freedom of speech, once again, all the liberals opposed it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_united

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion[SUP][21][/SUP] found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Replace Kennedy, the "swing," vote or Scalia with a liberal judge appointed by obama and you have a judge voting against 1st amendment protection of free speech

Notice that once again, the Liberal Justices, one put on the bench by obama, Sotomayor, voted against 1st ammendment protections of free speech...

A dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens[SUP][25][/SUP] was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor.

So again, I am not being hysterical or pointing to boogey men when I point out that one or two justices appointed by obama will change the nature of American law for 20-30 years, encroaching on private property rights, freedom of speech, gun rights and eventually freedom of religion as the religious exemptions under obamacare work their way to the Supreme Court. As you can see, 4 recent decisions were directly affected by the philosophical balance on the court.

If you are a libertarian voter, and wish to preserve the protections of the constitution, obama winning a second term will not achieve that goal. Is Romney a sure thing, no. He may very well appoint judges who eventually swing to the left like Breyer, or act out of personal goals, like Roberts. He may also appoint strict constructionists/originalists, who value the constitution. However, voting obama back into office will guarantee that one or two liberal judges will be making anti-consitutional decisions for the next 20-30 years. If you are a libertarian, that is something to seriously consider as you decide who to vote for. Look at these decisions. They went the way they did, and the liberals voted the way liberals always do, for bigger government over more personal freedom, or to put it in another way, for more government involvement in an individual's life, wether they own a gun, or own private property.

 

[blindsage]

You can't be a serious libertarian and vote Republican.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Aaaaaand STILL voting for Gary Johnson!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[billc]

Yes, 20-30 years of anti-libertarian decisions from the Supreme Court...yeah, that's a good trade...

 

[billc]

Here is another libertarian making the case about obama's possible supreme court picks and how important it is to keep him from making those appointments...

http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2012/10/the-libertarian-case-for-romney.php

Sandefur claims "Romney's appointees are just as likely to be bad as good," but that's true only if one lets the perfect be the enemy of the good. Justices Kennedy and Scalia are in their late 70s, and both are the critical fifth vote on tremendously important libertarian principles:

• There are four justices on the Supreme Court ready to hold that the First Amendment does not bar Congress from regulating political speech against incumbents.
• There are four justices on the Supreme Court ready to hold that the Second Amendment does not create any individual rights against the government.
• There are four justices on the Supreme Court ready to hold that the Commerce Clause creates no constraint on Congress's regulatory powers.
• There are likely at least four justices on the Supreme Court ready to hold that the government can choose to discriminate on the basis of race if "diversity" is at issue.

One can point to individual unhappy results from Republican-appointed justices, but it is a mathematical certainty that Obama-appointed justices will flip the Court on these critical issues of the rights of individuals against the government—none more critical than First Amendment protection for political speech. Once that falls, the game is over and libertarians have lost permanently.