Damon Root Discusses Libertarians vs. Conservatives on the Supreme Court and More!

[@trexx32]

so the short answer is there is no libertarians on the supreme court

[@Montfortracing]

@blogegog I think the government put a cap on how much wheat to grow to help push up wheat prices and to control the fluctuations of wheat prices. This was to try to help farmers. The Supreme Court ruled that the act was constitutional, thus expanding the Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.

[@LisaFrequency]

I find this interview to be quite good. Thank for posting as I think we need to see how conservatives differ from libertarians.

[@Montfortracing]

@XCritonX There's good judicial activism and there's bad judicial activism. As Damon mentioned, judges are to protect individual rights (whatever those rights might be?!?!) because we have certain rights before any government, which the government shouldn't take away.

[@bRizzle2009100]

What conservative says they want the courts to "defer to the majority"? Conservatives believe that whatever unconstitutional law is passed should be struck down. I'd like to know what conservatives this guy knows.

[@WhiteRussianBC]

@sniper6081 I agree. Libertarianism is fundamentally based on free distribution economy in contrast to Nazism which superposes free trade and free market capitalism as part of their communist agenda (originated from Marxist means of production thories). The merge of these philosophies would acquaint to social anarchism with collective anti-authoritarianism similar to that of anarcho-syndicalism

[@standj21]

@adamitshelanu Also... Libertarians understand the difference between relative truth and absolute truth. They have the capacity for critical thinking, and therefore make logical and objective decisions in almost every aspect of our political world.

[@UncleSteveFishing]

@Akatam0t0ma Quite simply I prefer not to give the libertarians an opportunity to show us what their flavor of "anarchy" would be like. I personally think it would be like Ukraine 1932.

[@standj21]

@MikeTMerciless By the way I'm not being sarcastic... I earnestly love engaging people like you in discourse, And hope to spend time answering your questions and addressing your misunderstanding.

[@standj21]

@MikeTMerciless I love comments like yours... What would you like to discuss first Absolute Truth, the war on drugs, or foreign policy? I love these particular subjects, and can bring excellent arguments concerning all of them. You let me know what you would like to learn about, and I will oblige.

[@Thorbie]

I kind of disagree with Root on this. I think activist is the wrong word. I think libertarians should favor the kind of originalism that overturns bad precedent and returns the interpretation of the constitution to what the founders intended clauses to mean. The Supreme Court shouldn't be making laws, just striking down laws. What would be nice is natural law theorists on the court, as opposed to formalists like Scalia. However, we definitely don't need any more Legal Realists on the court.

[@Montfortracing]

@richardcadbury Yes, but only if there will be a law being challenged for its constitutionality. For example, in Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court overturned a previous case about marriage rights in Pace v. Alabama (1883). Does that answer your question?

[@UncleSteveFishing]

Libertarians are synonymous with anarchists.

[@Akatam0t0ma]

@adamitshelanu: Some libertarians are anarchists, others are miniarchists. But even if they were synonymous, so what? Have you, by some line of thinking reached to the conclusion that anarchism is the most evil thing in the universe?

[@Thorbie]

@blogegog Basically the court in that case ruled that it can regulate activity that alone is not related to interstate commerce, but in the aggregate (basically if every person did it) it would have an effect on interstate commerce. Essentially it's bullshit logic that defies all rationality and meaning behind "interstate commerce," but that's currently the law.

[@x2f01mick]

@Akatam0t0ma Anarchy: from M.L. anarchia "without leader" e.g. The United States of America. The American colonists were called anarchists for shrugging off King George. All of my heroes are anarchists. Hell even Ernesto Guevara was an anarchist.

[@sniper6081]

@WhiteRussianBC I think nazism and libertarianism are just a little bit different from each. What with the consolidation of power into a large centralized government and what not.

[@JuliaB1955]

@adamitshelanu Absolutely NOT!

[@Onieracraft]

@tridentmovies Objective Moral framework? Pseudo-Philosophers are a dime a dozen on KZbin as always. We have done a great deal to boost people's confidence in what they know within this society, but very little to develop them intellectually.

[@JuliaB1955]

@d0861 Precisely.

[@x2f01mick]

@MikeTMerciless What in the hell is a "moral framework", don't bother answering because you'll just raise more questions. Study some philosophy then see what "petitio principii" means. A government without a moral framework is like a tiger without wings.

[@Akatam0t0ma]

@WhiteRussianBC: Successful troll is successful.

[@Akatam0t0ma]

@adamitshelanu: Again, you did not provide any substential criticism of libertarian ideas. So people who are for less governments intervention in our lives are now like Soviet Bolsheviks? Wow. Just WOW. I think you might just trolling for the lulz. And I bet my house that you believe that drug prohibition is a wonderful idea while claiming to be a huge fan of freedom, lol.

[@Thorbie]

@WhiteRussianBC YOU ARE LYING TO ME! I NEVAH HICHU! YOU ARE TEARING ME APART LISA!!

[@realStevenWalk]

@x2f01mick