There was 1 potential reason inclining me to suggest that a correct libertarian vote would be for Romney. Judges, and especially Supreme Court Justices. And then I read this.
Really? Judicial Advisor Robert Bork? Big Government pro-interventionist conservative? Makes Shrub look like a libertarian...government in your bedroom...that Robert Bork? I'd rather have Cass Sunstein the Nudger than someone Bork would recommend.
Game over...no reason AT ALL for a libertarian to vote for Romney.
Search This Blog
Pic
Contact
Currently Reading
Friends + Family
BlogFriends
Thinking Better
Econblogs
Pro-liberty
Political Engineering
Evolutionary realism
Health
Followers
Blog Archive
-
►
2013
(68)
- ► April 2013 (18)
- ► March 2013 (17)
- ► February 2013 (12)
- ► January 2013 (16)
-
►
2011
(639)
- ► December 2011 (43)
- ► November 2011 (51)
- ► October 2011 (74)
- ► September 2011 (31)
- ► August 2011 (25)
- ► April 2011 (75)
- ► March 2011 (60)
- ► February 2011 (59)
- ► January 2011 (57)
-
►
2010
(976)
- ► December 2010 (22)
- ► November 2010 (54)
- ► October 2010 (9)
- ► September 2010 (57)
- ► August 2010 (138)
- ► April 2010 (73)
- ► March 2010 (119)
- ► February 2010 (105)
- ► January 2010 (105)
-
►
2009
(376)
- ► December 2009 (66)
- ► November 2009 (85)
- ► October 2009 (56)
- ► September 2009 (73)
- ► August 2009 (49)
- ► April 2009 (5)
- ► February 2009 (1)
There was an error in this gadget
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
5 comments:
Really?
Really!
(1) using Bork is partly political positioning, to attract conservatives exactly based on the "argument from the Supreme Court".
(2) granting that some (most?) of the signal is real, what's so bad about Bork? He is an originalist -- exactly the sort of man we need on the court.
Originalism might be, like Bork:
Anti 9th, 10th amendments?
Anti 4th Amendment protections?
Anti-incorporation of the Reconstruction amendments?
There's two possibilities here.
1. Your genuine belief is that Bork's being Romney's 'constitutional/judicial advisor', in and of itself, means precisely this: future Romney nominees will be literally no better than future Obama nominees.
2. You were never really inclined to think of Romney as the 'correct libertarian vote' in the first place ;-)
If #1, that would be an interesting thing to expand upon.
Aretae, it's not clear to me exactly what your beef is. Do you know of any fair summary of Bork's judicial views (I don't -- wikipedia is not very informative but I find little to object to there.)
Regarding the particulars, I do think the 9th and 10th mean things, and Bork wrong about the 9th being an inkblot. On the other hand, taking a minimalist view of any aspect of the Constitution does not distinguish him in any way from post-New Deal jurisprudence, so it doesn't distinguish him.
Bork is most famous for opposing the penumbra plumbing of Roe vs Wade, which I agree with him on. I regard that as an awful decision, even though I am pro abortion.
I am also opposed to incorporation doctrine; the idea that "equal protection" means equal law strikes me as absurd. That's a purely aesthetic judgment, the main reason for opposing incorporation is that I would much rather have states competing on law. (And I should think you'd agree with me on that.) If incorporation has to happen at all, it should happen via "privileges and immunities", not "equal protection"; the former is naturally limited whereas equality is unlimited since it can never be achieved.
Penumbra plumbing wasn't any better on Griswold (the right decision, appallingly arrived at) but never mind that.
To me, "inkblot" reaches full-stop jaw-drop "I award you no points, and may G_d have mercy on your soul" territory. As Einstein is reputed to have said, "It's not even wrong."
If it's for campaign positioning, it's remarkably tin-eared, and likely aimed at Santorum voters.
Post a Comment