Judge Andrew Napolitano on Election 2016 and Being a Pro-Life Libertarian

"Do you know anybody living who expressly consents to the existence of the government and consents to what it does?" asks Judge Andrew Napolitano, senior judicial analyst for Fox News, syndicated columnist, and author of, most recently, Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Assault on Civil Liberties. "Your rights, my rights, are integral to our humanity. The government can't take them away by majority vote!"
Reason's Nick Gillespie caught up with the judge at this year's FreedomFest, the annual gathering of libertarians in Las Vegas, to discuss how his traditional Catholicism intersects with his libertarian politics, why electing Trump or Clinton will likely lead to the "demise of the Constitution as we understand it," why he thinks Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson won't win in November, his commitment to open borders, and the philosophical underpinnings to his pro-life stance on abortion.
"My opposition to abortion is not only because of Church teaching, but also because of a rational examination of the baby growing in the womb and a belief in the non-aggression principle," Napolitano explains. "The non-aggression principle prevents you from interfering with the life or the property of another human being without moral justification. There is no moral justification for killing a child in the womb!"
Runs about 30 minutes.
Edited by Ian Keyser and Joshua Swain. Cameras by Austin Bragg and Jim Epstein.
For downloadable versions and a transcript go here:
reason.com/reas...
Make sure to subscribe to ReasonTV's KZbin Channel to receive notification when new material goes live.

[@itsturtletime88]

Great interview. Rand Paul should appoint this great man to the supreme court... whenever America grows up and elects a decent human being for president.

[@kp3acesc695]

Ryan Rosenblum Shut up and check your facts. There are only about 22 different studies that I have read about to date. Stay away from mass media! NBC, CNN, ABC, etc. Pick up a book and read before opening mouth and sounding like a complete fool.

[@charleslanier1992]

Love me some Judge Napolitano. Cant get enough of him in front of a camera. Libertarians need to give him a platform to speak to everyone.

[@husseintoney]

What a load of rubbish when he says that Paul Ryan is like Pelosi, advancing his own big government!! Ya, like what? Libertarians are just good in spouting fancy words. Give me examples? Also your beloved Ron Paul was the king of earmarks so how you can claim that he will not give away money? Another stupid point when he said Republican are pushing for economic egalitarianism while you hear it all the time when Conservatives say we champion equality of opportunity not equality of income. Andrew just bluffing things so he can make a rational position for his beliefs. Well, he's not.

[@kp3acesc695]

Logic Time Nancy Pelosi, "We have to pass it to find out what's in it."

[@DocLarsen44]

It would be great if Napolitano could be the Libertarian candidate for POTUS, I think he would win, especially in this year. If that is just not to be, I would like to see him on the Supreme Court at the vary least, but preferably as the CJ-SCOTUS. He is absolutely a political/philosophical genius in my eyes.

[@CVsnaredevil]

Judge Napolitano! A great man

[@qwertyqart]

"The first miracle of Saint Reagan was tripling the national debt" - Nick was brutal :D

[@christianboekhout3475]

Gary Johnson BETTER pick him as a Supreme Court justice!

[@GooglFascists]

1st GAY Supreme Court Justice?

[@Valleyraven007]

+GooglFascists it looks like he is, he's been talking with him

[@christianboekhout3475]

GooglFascists he is gay?

[@TheFilamom30]

+Christian Boekhout No he is not...don't believe this tabloid trash...

[@spartan920]

He is. It's not tabloid trash. He's pro-gay marriage and had a partner who unfortunately passed.

[@rcknrllfreak]

Great interview. Judge Nap spot on once again Keep up the fight for liberty!

[@BioStock08]

Trump is not a conservative.

[@TheeBudGuru]

Every time I get on the road, I see everyone exercising their right to not give a shit!

[@gmb858]

I wish more people would exercise that right instead of the Right to Getting Their Panties in a Wad every time reality occurs in their lives. I'm waiting in vain to see the Time Magazine cover about the "Calm Generation."

[@coletrain2357]

I think the elephant in the room is that the discussion on whether or not abortion is a violation of the NAP could be made largely irrelevant if the state would stop subsidizing single motherhood and reckless unprotected sex. Historically the onus has always been on the woman to avoid sex and unwanted pregnancies, it's not something men are used to doing on a biological level from an evolutionary perspective. Let's face it, relative to women men seem to find sex irresistible and we also aren't the ones facing the immediate biological consequences of actually becoming pregnant (come on, being pregnant sounds awful). When I was young and stupid I had a bunch of unprotected sex that thankfully didn't end up in any pregnancies, but I was REALLY surprised my girlfriend allowed it to happen. I was not AT ALL surprised by my lack of ability to resist that urge at that age, but it wasn't until later on in my life that I learned about how divorce and alimony laws have totally perverted the way young women view sex and accidental pregnancy. It used to be the case that for a women to get pregnant outside of marriage was LIFE ENDING, whereas now it's a one way ticket to a free ride from daddy government on the welfare and alimony highway.

[@UTubekookdetector]

"I think the elephant in the room is that the discussion on whether or not abortion is a violation of the NAP could be made largely irrelevant if the state would stop subsidizing single motherhood and reckless unprotected sex" Well said, I wish we had 218 folks in the House & 60 in the Senate who thought like you.

[@Mick762]

well said

[@grrrlag]

While I largely agree that the government shouldn't be involved in removing risk from people, I think your claims to history and biology are off. Biology teaches that all creatures are driven to reproduce, both women and men. I think a recent change to society that might be a more direct cause of single motherhood and reckless unprotected sex, is a rising average marrying age and overall increasing disinterest in marriage in both sexes. Very little professional time is spent teaching people 1. marriage can be beneficial. 2. how to have a good marriage.

[@MilwaukeeF40C]

Define "marriage". Having a long term partner is like natural marriage. We don't need goddamn statist paperwork.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Coletrain Millenials will be one of the most accepting generations of abortion in decades while being one of the most sexless

[@nwbackcountry5327]

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist. -Lysander Spooner

[@bernlin2000]

I know one argument that will never unite anyone to anyone else's opinion: trying to claim that we need to abolish the Constitution in order to form a limited government :-P it would have to get MUCH worse to allow such an event to occur, and until than, that is nothing short of a "crackpot" opinion...

[@georgegrieninger8776]

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN, IN YOUR OPINION?

[@KittredgeRitter]

What a great interview. I always like hearing about Catholic belief systems.

[@jdffurr3237]

Much respect for the judge, would gladly vote for him

[@beseeingyou6]

This guy seems pretty smart

[@quintessenceSL]

As with others, good interview. Good to see Nick Gillespie acting as Napolitano's foil instead of his handmaiden. Helps to clarify ideas.

[@beanwl]

Nick Gillespie does such an excellent job as an interviewer. He knows how to ask the right question at the right time. They should put Judge Napolitano on the Supreme Court.

[@beanwl]

RockME AllDeus ha ha...that's true...very true

[@StephenB2]

he's my new hero

[@user-tc8go9xe5g]

Your energy and enthusiasm are contagious. Love watching your videos!

[@23Brettski]

Judge N. for the next Supreme Court Justice and or Attorney General

[@joeknipp6698]

Always enjoy interviews of the Judge... make it a weekly event ! The Judge did manage to dodge your question on how do you give consent... and is it something you have to do every day, or every month... and on and on.

[@deborahsinico9732]

And the only reason why I won't vote for Gary Johnson is he's PRO TPP!

[@BronzeEngraver1247]

For me it's that and his support for BLM.

[@DONLEOGON]

And he is a wall street friend.

[@VeniVidiVid]

Just curious, those single issues make him an inferior choice *in total* to both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?

[@BronzeEngraver1247]

+VeniVidiVid no, but they are serious negatives, overall he is far superior to Clinton, with the only thing trump offering that no one can being the destruction of the two party system.

[@DominoChild]

From the clip I saw, it doesn't seem like he's 100% for it. I feel that his opinion could change with time.

[@tvlangsam]

In my opinion, the Libertarian position on abortion should be as follows: A) A developing human has the same natural Right to Life as a fully developed person. B) As a pregnancy due to rape presents a conflict of Rights between the mother's Right to Bodily Autonomy and the developing person's Right to Life, judgement cannot be passed if the mother chooses to terminate the pregnancy within a reasonable time frame, and neither individuals nor a government body have the authority to prevent or punish termination in such instances. c) As no individual is obliged to sacrifice his or her Life for the Life of another, neither individuals nor a government body have the authority to prevent termination of a pregnancy that threatens the Life of the mother. D) As laws restricting abortion are ineffective and create crime and public safety hazards, making abortion a cultural taboo must come via condemnation, not legislation. The immorality of abortion must be explained before it can be enforced via government force.

[@tvlangsam]

surrealnumber You make a great point.

[@boyertb]

If A is true, then the problem with B is that you are punishing one person for the crimes of another.

[@tvlangsam]

Gitsum The same result occurs if you ban the abortion. The woman is forced to have a child against her will. She is punished for the crime of another. That's why it's too complicated and nuanced for any prohibition to be justified.

[@MilwaukeeF40C]

The libertarian position on abortion is: FUCK YOU CUT SPENDING!

[@tvlangsam]

Bushrod Rust Johnson Okay, you win.

[@byronlandissgraves4446]

Way to go Judge! 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻

[@lmiddleman]

Hope Trump wins and appoints Nap to the SCOTUS.

[@aznravechild6i9]

Wow...Judge Napolitano absolutely nails it.

[@petelebu]

always a pleasure to hear Andy speak, such a free thinking brilliant and good hearted man

[@dfortaeGameReviews]

Amazing man. I wish he was our President.

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Libertarians cannot be innately pro immigration, they ought to be some of the most anti immigration people out there as immigration requires the express consent of the populace and/or the private property owners

[@patrickwhatsittoyou8059]

I agree. I cannot be an open border individual because of the right to private property principle. I cannot climb someones fence whom I do not know and go raid their fridge without their consent. Certainly I would never allow that at my place. I can agree with a lot of Libertarian views but not the open border part.

[@furyofbongos]

20:20 Nick: "What % of your taxes do you consent to?" Judge "None." How can he say this and still say he's not an anarchist?

[@wildflower7191]

...Judge.. you are the..man of the.. hour..everyday..:)..we are so..blessed..

[@VeniVidiVid]

Great interview. I have a lot of respect for Judge Napolitano.

[@Claudio-gt4tn]

33:00 "I say challenge authority at every conceivable opportunity" !!

[@ernestknowles3424]

thank God for men like judge Andrew Napolitano will you run for president .????

[@dnathancain]

This is one of the best interviews on libertarianism that I have seen. Judge Napolitano provides a compelling argument on the philosophy of natural law and liberty.

[@keithmccormack6248]

Dear Judge Napolitano, After listening to your interesting and insightful interview I have the following questions: Regarding the principle of non-aggression: If one does not does not aggress upon another’s body or property (commit physical evil against another), then one can do that which one wants, but one can aggress upon more than another’s body or property, aggressing upon another’s moral character (committing a moral evil against another), therefore, can one still do that which one wants? Regarding the function of government: Is the only function of government to guarantee the natural law? If not, is the guarantee of the natural law the primary function of government? If so, what about the common good and the relationship between it and the government? Regarding rights: What is a right? What causes a right to be? I hope you can make the time to answer these question and I eagerly await your response! Thank you! P.S. I am interested in reading other’s responses to the questions too! As an aside and to clarify the principle of subsidiarity: “What the lesser can do, the greater ought not do.”

[@MilwaukeeF40C]

"one can aggress upon more than another’s body or property, aggressing upon another’s moral character" If I understand this correctly, you're talking about shit like drugs or pornography. Voluntarists consider equating the activity of vices to "aggression against morals" to be petty. "Is the only function of government to guarantee the natural law?" If government exists at all, yes. "If not, is the guarantee of the natural law the primary function of government?" Yes. (Hypothetical contradictory "yes" to both questions because I am an open minded libertarian.) "what about the common good and the relationship between it and the government" Government can not competently, fairly, or ethically "plan" common good in any way other than respecting voluntary interaction. There is a vast, vast, vast amount of historical information to be used to support the logical conclusion that only individual liberty produces satisfactory results for "common good". "What is a right? What causes a right to be?" A right is anything that one can do without requiring another to do or give up anything. Otherwise, you are just giving yourself "rights" to things that may very well have never occurred to exist at all. I can sit here without anyone else having anything else to do with it. I can't have a "right to food" if it suddenly turns out that there is nobody remaining capable of manufacturing food for me to be able to take it from them. That's absurd.

[@garymoore3446]

Judge Andrew Napolitano for president...!!!

[@husseintoney]

What a load of rubbish when he says that Paul Ryan is like Pelosi, advancing his own big government!! Ya, like what? Libertarians are just good in spouting fancy words. Give me examples? Also your beloved Ron Paul was the king of earmarks so how you can claim that he will not give away money? Another stupid point when he said Republican are pushing for economic egalitarianism while you hear it all the time when Conservatives say we champion equality of opportunity not equality of income. Andrew just bluffing things so he can make a rational position for his beliefs. Well, he's not. He says he consent to non of his money to be taxed but wants government security to protect his rights?!! He should put his money where his mouth is and return the earnings he made as a government employee [judge].

[@iam5692]

In 1917 the US supreme court ruled that the 16th amendment had to be strictly interpreted to apply only to income derived from business carried on under article 1 section 8. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; End of story. This case has never been overturned but the supreme courts ruling is totally ignored. The "court" called the income tax a "tariff". Tariffs are taxes laid on things coming into or going out from the USA.

[@JohnDaCajun]

This was a great interview, I'm liking the love for Thomas in here!

[@richardbuxton3546]

A right - the right to life for instance - is universal and can not be taken away. If a government can deny a right - gun ownership for criminals for instance - then the right is merely a privilege. Which begs the question... Where Judicial execution exists might it be argued that there is no right to life?

[@wkdravenna]

Andrew is a great guy.

[@toneman335]

There will be no justice till the corrupt Hillary Clinton is serving a prison sentence!

[@TampaBayMoFo]

Great interview! Thank you!

[@Paul-A01]

What about a convention of the states to implement new amendments to limit the government?

[@MilwaukeeF40C]

They'll just ratify a bunch of positive "rights". California and Massachusetts will fuck it up.

[@danny2078]

Andrew Napolitano for president 2020

[@combatjm89]

Superb interview.

[@UTubekookdetector]

23:27-24:16 Sad, but true. If we had 218 folks in the House & 60 in the Senate who believed that way & understood (instead of sticking heads in the sand) the enormous problems our debt will cause, we would see some things change.As it is, we largely have two parties who often pass an Omnibus bill at the 11th hour, which will only increase the debt--all while patting themselves on the back with spring-loaded elbows for a job well done. Gary Johnson 2016 ;)

[@garymoore3446]

What a good guy...!!!

[@furyofbongos]

14:40 - I agree, a government agent can step in and protect my rights in the same way as I can protect someone from getting murdered, but how do you justify taxation? You can't. So you have an illegitimate agent "legitimately" stepping in and protecting. It astonishes me how such intelligent and accomplished people can have such a blind spot. Are they simply cowards?

[@brianbob7514]

The judge is a good man

[@Freezencrash]

If not for her incompetence we might never have know how deep this all goes.

[@TimHPop776]

Thank you!!

[@overcommunikate]

It's interesting to hear the perspective of a judge who believes in natural rights, however the law has abandoned that interpretation for a very long time. However, natural law only applies to people. A fetus is not a person, it is a group of cells. Does a women violate the non-aggression principle everytime she miscarries? What about when she has a heavy period? A fetus is not an instance of life unless the mother chooses to carry the child to term. The fetus has no right to property unless the mother gives it to her.

[@overcommunikate]

True, the definition of personhood is murky. As difficult it is to define when a fetus stops being a fetus, maybe when it can survive out of the womb without extreme medical care. However, Mr. Napilitano is advocating for individual rights EXCEPT for women's right to do with their body. Crazy hypocrisy hidden by rehtoric about non-aggression. Also, does it matter? People are going to seek abortions no matter what the law says and this extreme criminalization will cause more healthy women to die at the hands of black market doctors and drugs. But sure, let's say everything is a group of cells. Do you have a right to live? Does a chicken have a right to live? Does the group of cells called lettuce have a right to live? We kind of already operate under the notion that things don't have an inherent right to live, or if they do they can be taken away under the correct circumstances (if the chicken is your property, you can kill and eat it; if you murder people in the state of Texas you can be sentenced to death). So I don't think that leads to any absurd conclusions.

[@tseawell90]

For one, a miscarriage is an unintentional and often unavoidable event. So a woman could not reasonably be held responsible for the damage caused by a miscarriage. Second, when a woman chooses to get pregnant she is responsible for the life it creates from conception. Any intentional act to terminate that life is immoral and should be punished.

[@tseawell90]

+Tyler Orr incorrect. Sperm on its own cannot produce life.

[@overcommunikate]

Let's say a women gets pregnant, doesn't know that her birth control has failed, and continues engaging in strenuous activity and loses the baby. Is that unintentional? When a woman is raped she didn't choose to get pregnant. Is that unintentional. Having an abortion is choosing to not be pregnant. Each person has a property interest in their own body, and being anti-abortion strips that right from individuals with uteri. You are drawing arbitrary lines that are unworkable for courts or legislation. Why are our laws based on morality? Your morality says murder is immoral. My morals says that a fetus is not a life thus bodily rejection of those cells is not murder. Basing political structure on one type of morality is a theocracy. How can you advocate for a theocracy but also say you are a libertarian? HYPOCRISY.

[@LeGioNoFZioN]

because miscarriages happen for a variety of reasons most of which cannot be diagnosed by medical science at this point in time one cannot argue if a miscarriage is a violation of the non aggression agreement. a fetus is a protoform human in its earliest states of development, and many religious and irreligious consider it to have human status as the judge does. a heavy period would have no bearing on the matter as that is not something people have control over, thus nature and not the act of a participant with the power to affect that outcome. a fetus would have no right to property save that which is inherited from a parent. children are born premature every day, NICU's all over north america are filled with them. Some born naturally, some via caesarian. often premature deliveries are because of doctor insisted actions to care for the health of both mother and baby (pre-eclampsia for example). therefore the mothers intentions can't impact often the time and date or degree of development of a fetus so the mothers wishes while an influencing factor cannot be the sole determining factor.

[@Simon-pl2zi]

If we can clean up the government we can then clean up the monetary system

[@Chuichupachichi]

Govern by consent...the only non-criminal form of governing! When one party from among We The People enters into an agreement with another party from among We The People, the former agreeing to contribute his labor, the latter agreeing to compensate that labor, suddenly, a third party, foreign to the agreement, intercepts the compensation before the labor contributing party can get his hands on the fruits of his own labor. By the time the proper, legal owner of that compensation acquires possession of it, the intercepting, third party has already taken whatever portion of those fruits that they determined to take. It's guaranteed that they would take all of it, if it were not for the fact that they wish to repeat this act, continually into the future So absolutely certain is the U.S. government of We The People's consent to be governed by them, that they secure the payment for their services before We The People possess even the potential to spend our money on something other Truth be told, valid governing by consent requires We The People to be the first and sole possessors of our property, the fruits of our labor...then, those consenting will pay their servants for their services and those feeling that they can serve themselves adequately, or much better than arrogant, prideful, supposed servant, wealthy strangers, will continue to rightfully possess their own property, the fruits of their labor

[@johncarey4186]

This man is in my eyes, the greatest American of modern times. He should be our President. What a wonderful world it would be. DINAH SPENCER He should be our President. Hmm, write in!

[@derekflinn1]

The beloved Judges' views on immigration is ok in 1816 but not in 2016, I cant understand with the wisdom he has he can't see this. View Stefan Molyneux video libertarian vs immigration I think it will wise some people up.

[@rod6722]

I disagree with him on immigration, Johnson, Trump, and the minarchist/ancap cleavage. I think that secured borders are preferable because we can't have open borders and a welfare state, I think that Gary Johnson was a joke and a leftist rather than a libertarian, I think that Trump will do some good especially on foreign policy, and I lean more towards anarcho-capitalism than minarchism (although I'm not totally closed to the idea of a constitutional minarchist government). However, I'm glad he talks about pro-life libertarians (abortion is murder and clearly violates the NAP) and he's a great man, a great fighter for liberty.

[@Car1Sagan]

Brilliant

[@jmvmike]

Outstanding interview

[@nullvoid7370]

I do not concent to their theft of liberty or of my money our for Father's understood that the government can not protect but you have a God given right to protect yourself and the responsibility to protect those you love if i threatened your life today all they would do is issue a piece of paper saying i cant come close to you but they will not put a cop at your fount door 24/7 to protect you will have to protect yourself and your family if a criminal is not scared of their paperwork

[@jimkirby9959]

What Napolitano doesn't get is that requiring a woman to bear a child against her will is a form of slavery. Furthermore, he doesn't get it that every person has a right under the 5th Amendment and natural law to do what's necessary to stop an unwanted bodily aggression--even one that doesn't last 9 months. What he also doesn't get is that the 5th Amendment protects "life, liberty and property" and doesn't say that life of a fetus is to be preserved when it threatens life or liberty of the potential mother. He's still too Roman Catholic for me to respect him as a voice of libertarianism.

[@kozhedub]

My problem with this flavor of libertarian is that it seems completely separated from reality. he has his talking points and he's not changing them

[@life_lab_chronicles]

Aquinas: every sin committed directly against human life is a mortal sin. Now simple fornication implies an inordinateness that tends to injure the life of the offspring to be born of this union. IIa-IIæ Q.154 Art. 2

[@ronpaulrevered]

Judge loses me at 15:00. I've never heard the natural rights argument used to defend the minimal state. Hans Hoppe needs to hop in on this one.

[@ronpaulrevered]

***** Cute name calling. He only pioneered argumentation ethics as a foundation for Libertarian rights and developed some of the most interesting, if not revolutionary, critiques of logical empiricism. Of course you cannot delegate rights you yourself do not have. Do you think Hoppe thinks otherwise?

[@ronpaulrevered]

***** You are a snake. Regarding Hoppe as a homophobe and bigot: Hoppe discussed the existence of covenant communities that would develop under a private propertarian legal framework. He described the varied types of discrimination that would inevitably arise, but described how that discrimination would be limited to the owners property. Why would a black business owner want to service a kkk member or vice versa? Why would a gay business owner want to serve a bigot of the Westboro Baptist Church or vise versa?

[@ronpaulrevered]

***** Quit pretending like you have read and understood Hoppe. Hoppe is a private propertarian. Do you have an open front door policy for anyone who wants to come in and sleep?

[@abcw114]

Unfortunately, Hoppe assigns the rights he would have as a private property owner under an anarchocapitalist system to the government as it exists today based on the reasoning that private law societies would essentially do the same. I don't find that particularly compelling. Anarchocommunists make similar arguments - namely, that we would live in little voluntary collectives where we share property and resources, but until such time as the government falls, it should redistribute wealth in much the same fashion as would a collective. I don't share this view. I'm more with Michael Huemer here - that we should reduce the functions of government and expand the sphere of the free market until the market overwhelms the government. And I also agree with von Mises that enlarging the government to correct for unhappy consequences of policies only leads to new terrible secondary consequences. Before you know it, you've started with middle of the road statism and you've concluded with full-on authoritarianism.

[@ronpaulrevered]

abcw "Hoppe assigns the rights he would have as a private property owner under an anarchocapitalist system to the government as it exists today based on the reasoning that private law societies would essentially do the same." Direct me to him expressing this view in his words. You just blew a bunch a gobbledygook all over the place as far as I'm concerned.

[@johnjon1823]

The interviewer seems to have the same leather coat as 2011 and the judge's hair is now darker but thinner- Is this indeed time in a bottle???? All possible puns intended.

[@MaruAdventurer]

I part ways with Napolitano on immigration. There are 4Bn people on this planet that would rather be somewhere else than where they are. Can you imagine the US with just half that number here? All you have to do is look at Europe with all its current immigration issues to know that free flow of anyone is not possible.

[@rebelinkontrol5601]

Well problems arise because they bordered the planet earth and put fence around human beings.

[@MaruAdventurer]

I'll tell you what. Send me your current residence address and I will make sure the next 5 Syrian refugees to arrive can share your space with them.

[@rebelinkontrol5601]

+MaruAdventurer why share their space with me. They can live in Montana or North Dakota . Plenty space out there to locate the whole Iceland or Syria's population

[@MilwaukeeF40C]

I will gladly rent to them if they pay on time. Cash, gas, grass, or ass.

[@jambandbillyd]

Another example of people refusing to accept the reality of Roe vs Wade.

[@MidwestGomez]

I wonder if, on the weekends away from the hustle and bustle of Fox News, the judge dons a skull t-shirt and lets down the front of his hair into a long, Misfits-style devil's lock.

[@MilwaukeeF40C]

He's actually a Mod.

[@neeltheother2342]

When will Nick ever not keep interrupting his guests?!

[@nickkurtz512]

Mr. Napolitano, will you like to be Adam Kokesh's running mate in 2020?

[@FrankHarwald]

Kokesh's a far more principled libertarian than Gary Johnson - not sure about Rand Paul though

[@toneman335]

President Trump 2020....4 more years!

[@user-sp8eb6iz7f]

Judge, isn't giving israel 38 billion dollars against the establishment clause of the first amendment??

[@johnosterhoudt]

Did Judge Nap call Nick G "Nico" at the end of this? lol

[@nolanlouie]

Thomas MORE...one "o"

[@jessicasnaplesfl7474]

"There is no moral justification for killing a child in the womb!" For women who don't like and don't want children, the addition of a baby to their lives is often seen as the worst thing that can happen to them. What can a pregnant woman do if she doesn't like children? A child is NO BLESSING TO HER, rather it's seen as an enemy intrusion into her life, whether or not she has a partner. This is called an UNWANTED BABY, or one MOST LIKELY TO LEAD AN AWFUL LIFE, ABUSED AND UNLOVED BY ITS PARENT(s). Religious and non-religious people disagree about when life starts. Those who approve of abortion don't believe they are killing a live baby. I don't wish to impose my beliefs on a woman who is pregnant and who must deal with the life changes a baby added to her life will bring. Some women welcome these changes; some don't. I'm thankful the decision to abort a baby or not is not one I must make. That decision belongs to the person whose life will be affected by the addition of the baby. If she sees the "seed" growing as a fetus and not a child, her decision to stop and remove that growth before it becomes a baby is easier than if she believes life starts at conception. She and only she is entitled to make that decision as it likely will affect her for the rest of her life.

[@erkkoagge2937]

No one should be entitled to end a human life for selfish reasons!

[@JohnKosanke1]

Maybe a good Libertarian presidential candidate for 2020?

[@FrankHarwald]

Adam Kokesh?

[@jeffbisscrx]

The fact is that women have the natural, innate right to control their own being and that includes abortion until the fetus itself becomes a person, when it becomes sentient. Prior to that point the fetus is an object, a nonsentient assemblage of cells developing into a person. Until that point the state has absolutely no interest in infringing upon the right of a woman to prevent or end pregnancy. The state does not grant women this right, it is natural and protected by the Ninth Amendment. Also, women have the right to equal protection under the law and that includes full and free access to health care as do men without state interference. Napolitano, like most "pro-life" people are simply interested in controlling women's sexuality and coercing them to live in accordance with their religious sensibilities.

[@erkkoagge2937]

The person is written in the DNA at the time of conception.

[@bobbytree5353]

G Certified

[@BobFibonacci]

The judge should go back to Florence

[@LuiPardusPardus]

Explain why you're for open borders and private property in one sentence, please...

[@ZankDigiTrash]

Why is he not our president?

[@rantingratchell7348]

Egalitarianism O.o

[@Auguss96]

The kids could not have been playing Pokemon Go on the plane. You're lying judge!

[@moribundmurdoch]

Zygote ?

[@joeblack1754]

Annoying interviewer. Let him answer the questions please.

[@Ntempleton]

So full of BS

[@kozhedub]

This guy's a kook. Wonder if hes ever used a road

[@husseintoney]

He's full of rubbish when he says that Paul Ryan is like Pelosi, advancing his own big government!! Ya, like what? Libertarians are just good in spouting fancy words. Give me examples? Also your beloved Ron Paul was the king of earmarks so how you can claim that he will not give away money? Another stupid point when he said Republican are pushing for economic egalitarianism while you hear it all the time when Conservatives say we champion equality of opportunity not equality of income. Andrew just bluffing things so he can make a rational position for his beliefs. Well, he's not. He says he consent to non of his money to be taxed but wants government security to protect his rights?!! He should put his money where his mouth is and return the earnings he made as a government employee [judge].

[@toddfromwork8931]

Let me refute your argument with this thought experiment: Imagine two people who have been forcibly kidnapped. One victim says to the other, "it is morally wrong for the kidnapper to confine us against our will. He has forced us into an involuntary association with him and with each other, and I say we leave this dungeon and live our lives as we see fit." The other prisoner says "you're a kook. I wonder if you've ever used the kidnapper's bathroom."

[@kozhedub]

Give Somalia a try

[@toddfromwork8931]

Andrew Huseby I'm not saying I dislike prosperity. Obviously my point is over your head. Don't worry about it.