+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Current Events (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-34.html)
+---- Forum: General Political Discussion (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-15.html)
+---- Thread: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. (/thread-662.html)
A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - Galen - 02-02-2017
I understand that many here are allergic to Fox News but Judge Andrew Napolitano is in fact a libertarian. I must say Trump's choice comes at a bit of a surprise but it is a pleasant one.
RE: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - Bob Butler 54 - 02-02-2017
(02-02-2017, 01:55 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I have no issue with Gorsuch.
This was the first thing Trump did right.
I give credit where it is due.
Seconded. I might have been one of the few here leaning blue to approve of Scalia. There is a need to do Rule of Law and interpret the words of the Constitution in terms of the intent of the authors. From what I've seen so far, Gorsuch seems a good choice from my point of view.
RE: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - Eric the Green - 02-02-2017
Good, if you oppose every attempt by the political state to ameliorate the problems of the people. Good if you want an establishment of religion in the USA. Good, if you believe every loony in town should be permitted to have a loaded machine gun.
Horrible, and he should not be permitted to serve on the Court. And if the Repugs pull the nuc-ya-lar option, I say, go ahead, make my day! We're supposed to believe they won't also use it the NEXT time the Democrats filibuster one of Drump's reactionary appointments? I have some land on the Moon to sell you then. OK, then the GOPPERS won't be able to filibuster the next Democratic president's choices either.
RE: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - Ragnarök_62 - 02-02-2017
(02-02-2017, 01:55 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I have no issue with Gorsuch.
This was the first thing Trump did right.
I give credit where it is due.
IIRC, he'd be the first Xer on the court. Hopefully he'd be more inclined towards rationalism.
RE: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - Marypoza - 02-02-2017
(02-02-2017, 04:58 AM)Galen Wrote: I understand that many here are allergic to Fox News but Judge Andrew Napolitano is in fact a libertarian. I must say Trump's choice comes at a bit of a surprise but it is a pleasant one.
Any relation to Janet?
RE: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - SomeGuy - 02-02-2017
None, the last name just mean "of Naples".
RE: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - Marypoza - 02-02-2017
(02-02-2017, 06:48 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: None, the last name just mean "of Naples".
-- grazie
RE: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - Warren Dew - 02-02-2017
(02-02-2017, 04:58 AM)Galen Wrote: I understand that many here are allergic to Fox News but Judge Andrew Napolitano is in fact a libertarian. I must say Trump's choice comes at a bit of a surprise but it is a pleasant one.
I wasn't too surprised as I was following this closely. Trump first released a likely list of nominees in May; the list had been put together by Heritage, and so was mostly libertarian leaning. I believe it was an attempt to mollify those like myself who viewed the Supreme Court as the primary issue of the election. Then in the general election, he gave a definitive promise that he would nominate from the list, which had been expanded with some additional names provided by Cruz, in return for Cruz's endorsement. That promise was instrumental in making me comfortable voting for him.
Given how rapidly he's been making good on his promises, I figured it was likely he'd nominate someone in the mold of Scalia as promised. I do still think it's a good sign he's not just nominating someone who will just rubber stamp his initiatives, as Obama did.
RE: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - SomeGuy - 02-02-2017
Quote:Given how rapidly he's been making good on his promises, I figured it was likely he'd nominate someone in the mold of Scalia as promised.
It's good politics on his part, especially if in return for conceding these sorts of issues to traditional Republicans he gets similar concessions on things he actually cares about, like trade, infrastructure, and immigration.
Quote: I do still think it's a good sign he's not just nominating someone who will just rubber stamp his initiatives, as Obama did.
I don't think that's quite fair, I think they're all actually true believers in progressivism. So any confluence between their beliefs and their interests is just a further sign that "reality has a liberal bias".
RE: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - Galen - 02-03-2017
(02-02-2017, 04:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good, if you oppose every attempt by the political state to ameliorate the problems of the people. Good if you want an establishment of religion in the USA. Good, if you believe every loony in town should be permitted to have a loaded machine gun.
Horrible, and he should not be permitted to serve on the Court. And if the Repugs pull the nuc-ya-lar option, I say, go ahead, make my day! We're supposed to believe they won't also use it the NEXT time the Democrats filibuster one of Drump's reactionary appointments? I have some land on the Moon to sell you then. OK, then the GOPPERS won't be able to filibuster the next Democratic president's choices either.
You do realize that you got here because Harry Reid did exactly that a year or two ago. Karma is a bitch. If the Dems are smart then they will accept they will lose this battle and keep the filibuster.
RE: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - Galen - 02-03-2017
(02-02-2017, 06:48 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: None, the last name just mean "of Naples".
No. Thank god for small favors.
RE: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - David Horn - 02-03-2017
(02-03-2017, 03:10 AM)Galen Wrote:(02-02-2017, 04:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good, if you oppose every attempt by the political state to ameliorate the problems of the people. Good if you want an establishment of religion in the USA. Good, if you believe every loony in town should be permitted to have a loaded machine gun.
Horrible, and he should not be permitted to serve on the Court. And if the Repugs pull the nuc-ya-lar option, I say, go ahead, make my day! We're supposed to believe they won't also use it the NEXT time the Democrats filibuster one of Drump's reactionary appointments? I have some land on the Moon to sell you then. OK, then the GOPPERS won't be able to filibuster the next Democratic president's choices either.
You do realize that you got here because Harry Reid did exactly that a year or two ago. Karma is a bitch. If the Dems are smart then they will accept they will lose this battle and keep the filibuster.
The issue is not the filibuster. It's the stonewalling that allowed Trump to appoint anyone to this seat. The Dems have no choice: go along, and admit they are effectively neutered, or go down fighting. They are already weak enough. Conceding anything to the opposition is a sign of impending death, just when they need to rebuild.
RE: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - Eric the Green - 02-03-2017
(02-03-2017, 11:51 AM)David Horn Wrote:(02-03-2017, 03:10 AM)Galen Wrote:(02-02-2017, 04:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good, if you oppose every attempt by the political state to ameliorate the problems of the people. Good if you want an establishment of religion in the USA. Good, if you believe every loony in town should be permitted to have a loaded machine gun.
Horrible, and he should not be permitted to serve on the Court. And if the Repugs pull the nuc-ya-lar option, I say, go ahead, make my day! We're supposed to believe they won't also use it the NEXT time the Democrats filibuster one of Drump's reactionary appointments? I have some land on the Moon to sell you then. OK, then the GOPPERS won't be able to filibuster the next Democratic president's choices either.
You do realize that you got here because Harry Reid did exactly that a year or two ago. Karma is a bitch. If the Dems are smart then they will accept they will lose this battle and keep the filibuster.
The issue is not the filibuster. It's the stonewalling that allowed Trump to appoint anyone to this seat. The Dems have no choice: go along, and admit they are effectively neutered, or go down fighting. They are already weak enough. Conceding anything to the opposition is a sign of impending death, just when they need to rebuild.
Exactly. Do we have an opposition party, or not? If not, we have conceded all power to Trump and his minions.
That seems to me that we have lost our democracy and become a defacto fascist state.
We never needed Scalia in the first place. He was an outrageous thief of the peoples' interests in all his decisions. We don't need another Scalia. If the Democrats concede to another Scalia, they have conceded all power to the right wing of this country. We never needed the idiot Reagan who appointed Scalia; we never needed Reaganomics. That was an outrageous corporate takeover; completely unnecessary and stupid. We need to throw out the bums, and start moving forward again by the 2020s after 40 years of crap and stupidity.
RE: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - Eric the Green - 02-03-2017
(02-02-2017, 09:54 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:Quote:Given how rapidly he's been making good on his promises, I figured it was likely he'd nominate someone in the mold of Scalia as promised.
It's good politics on his part, especially if in return for conceding these sorts of issues to traditional Republicans he gets similar concessions on things he actually cares about, like trade, infrastructure, and immigration.
He cares about lower taxes, deregulation and other traditional Reaganomics just as much as he cares about trade and immigration and his toll roads.
RE: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - SomeGuy - 02-03-2017
(02-03-2017, 12:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(02-02-2017, 09:54 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:Quote:Given how rapidly he's been making good on his promises, I figured it was likely he'd nominate someone in the mold of Scalia as promised.
It's good politics on his part, especially if in return for conceding these sorts of issues to traditional Republicans he gets similar concessions on things he actually cares about, like trade, infrastructure, and immigration.
He cares about lower taxes, deregulation and other traditional Reaganomics just as much as he cares about trade and immigration and his toll roads.
So you're saying it would be a win/win for him, then?
RE: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - Eric the Green - 02-03-2017
He's winning now, isn't he?
(and the nation is losing now, in every way, on every issue)
RE: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - Eric the Green - 02-03-2017
(02-02-2017, 06:06 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:(02-02-2017, 01:55 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I have no issue with Gorsuch.
This was the first thing Trump did right.
I give credit where it is due.
IIRC, he'd be the first Xer on the court. Hopefully he'd be more inclined towards rationalism.
The last thing you can call Xers or nomads in general is "rational"
RE: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - SomeGuy - 02-03-2017
(02-03-2017, 12:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: He's winning now, isn't he?
(and the nation is losing now, in every way, on every issue)
I'm happy.
RE: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - Eric the Green - 02-03-2017
Enjoy your moment, Jordan. Cycles shift, and it may not last.
RE: A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick. - Eric the Green - 02-03-2017
From People for the American Way:
*EMERGENCY SUPREME COURT CAMPAIGN*
If we give an inch, Trump and his allies WILL take a mile.
The Supreme Court fight is the front line of the fight to stop Trump's war on the Constitution.
A lot of people have been asking me about the campaign to keep Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch off of the Supreme Court noting their frustrations (and a little bit of despair) about some of the false narratives that have been circulating about this nominee … and about our chances of stopping him.
It’s time to address some of these concerns and dispel some myths.
Another Scalia is not OK. It would be bad. (Very, very bad.)
Just because he’s often been described as ‘Antonin Scalia with a smile,’ and people generally have nice things to say about his demeanor and his intellect, does not mean in any way that Judge Gorsuch is within the mainstream of legal thought. His judicial philosophy actually places him to the right of Scalia in key areas of the law, and no one should forget that Scalia himself was an extremist -- the original champion of a once-fringe judicial philosophy that made him the most reliable hard-right vote on the Court.
Just look at the most important issues that have gone in front of the Supreme Court in recent decades:
He was on the wrong side in Citizens United and the other decisions that effectively hung a “for sale” sign our democracy,
He voted to block marriage equality and uphold laws criminalizing same-sex relationships,
He repeatedly voted to chip away a women’s reproductive rights and voted for the Hobby Lobby ruling that said a corporation had “religious rights” that allowed it to discriminate against its women employees,
He voted consistently to weaken civil rights, environmental protections, safeguards for public health, workers’ rights, voting rights (including gutting the Voting Rights Act), and so much more.
NPR’s Supreme Court and legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg rightly calls Gorsuch “a disciple of Scalia's crusade.”
“Scalia’s seat,” the 60-vote rule, and the “Nuclear Option”
Right off the bat, this is NOT “Scalia’s seat.” It’s The People’s seat.
In an op-ed titled “Make the Republicans Go Nuclear” in today’s New York Times, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) writes, “Senate Republicans are in the middle of pulling off one of the great political heists in American history: the theft of a seat on the United States Supreme Court,” and adds, “This crime is going to do enormous damage to the integrity of the Supreme Court for decades to come. Every 5-4 decision of the court will have a cloud hanging over it.”
He continues:
“Categorical opposition to this nomination is not retribution for the treatment of Judge [Merrick] Garland. It is a refusal to be party to a tactic that will deeply hurt the Supreme Court and, consequently, the rule of law. Yes, the outcome may well be that Senate Republicans strike another blow against our institutions by eliminating the 60-vote rule. But let it be their choice. I am not prepared to be complicit in the undermining of our government.”
I’ll add one more thing to Senator Merkley’s great points -- and this is important: right now, Republicans do not have the votes to execute the Nuclear Option. At least four Republican senators have stated on the record that they are opposed to changing the Senate rules.
We’re marching. We’re protesting. Americans are in the streets! But if not for this very fight, then for what?
This president is at war with our Constitution and with fundamental American values. His bigoted attacks on Muslims, immigrants, women, and others, as well as his nomination of a cabinet full of billionaire extremists who represent the Radical Right and corporate special interests, have awoken an unprecedented grassroots movement -- far bigger than the Tea Party ever was.
All of this action is important! Exercising our free speech rights … showing the president, his allies in Congress, and the entire world that the right-wing Trump agenda is not the American Way and the People will rise against it… This truly is what democracy looks like.
But if this amazing energy is not harnessed and channeled into winning important fights in defense of our constitutional rights, the rule of law, and our foundational democratic institutions, then what is it all for?
This Supreme Court fight is the definitive “where the rubber meets the road” moment for the Resistance movement. Because if we roll over in this fight, then the Trump administration and its right-wing congressional majorities will surely roll over us. Trump will be emboldened and his policies -- and nominees -- will continue to get even more brazen and more extreme.
Think we won’t be able to make Senate Democrats stand strong? Think again.
Senate offices reportedly have been receiving 1.5 million calls a day this week from Americans concerned about various Trump nominees, his executive orders, and more. Senators are paying attention.
We already have an unprecedented eight senators who have announced their intentions to vote against this Supreme Court nominee. And that’s not out of retribution for the treatment of Merrick Garland -- that’s because they’ve looked at Neil Gorsuch’s record (he was one of the most right-wing potential nominees on Trump’s list of unacceptable candidates) and concluded that his confirmation would be bad for the American people.
Our goal remains shoring up every single Democratic senator and swaying a small handful of Republicans to defect from Mitch McConnell’s ranks. We CAN do it. We just need to be relentless. If not now, when?
It’s a time for the People to lead our leaders. That’s the fight we’re stepping up to lead, with your help and your committed support, and we can’t thank you enough for your part in it.
We’re depending on the generous donations of our members and supporters to carry out -- and win -- this absolutely necessary fight. Please pitch in what you can right now>>
THANK YOU for everything you do.
Sincerely,
Michael Keegan, President