History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
I eagerly look forward to seeing whether Bush chooses a centralist libertarian or a decentralist libertarian. :-)
Right. Sorry I mispelled Don's last name, which is Boudreaux.
OTOH, he starts "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" with these immortal words:
"The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation."
So presumably the SCOTUS has no inherent authority either.
Ditto for America's only native criminal class.
Works for me! But that's (sadly) even less likely than Brown or Kozinski. Even those are, I fear, pipe dreams.
Spooner would surely choose Randy, though I don't think Don would make him spin in the grave either.
My choices would be:
1. None of the Above;
2. Walter Williams. He wrote an article a few years ago arguing for himself as a Supreme Court justice.
Why not? He's pro-free market and pro-individual liberty across the board. As he pointed out in his essay, the Constitution doesn't require that a member of the Court be a lawyer, which makes him all the more appealing, frankly. This would also appease race-conflicted, "minority"-addled, Jayson Blair hiring, NY Times liberal types, who pine for a "minority."
3. Don Beaudreaux. Obviously pro-market, etc. He also has a law degree, although I don't know if he's actually a lawyer.
Randy Barnett would also be good even if he does hang around Harvard on occasion.
All three are smarter than John Roberts (!) and light years ahead of Miers.
But I think Miers would be good if only to represent the Cronies, Church Ladies, and lesser lights of the country, who after all deserve a voice. "Isn't that special?," in Dana Carvey-speak.
But the real Q is: Who would Spooner want? That should be our choice!
I propose a seance...
How about Randy Barnett?
I meant: "Since when has not wanting to repeal Roe v. Wade actually disqualified a Republican judge?"
Since when has wanting to repeal Roe v. Wade actually disqualified a Republican judge?
Personally, I have looked long and hard for reasons not to like Brown, and the only thing I could find was an inconsistency in federalist principles: she seemed to favor the Lochner approach to striking down state business regulations from the federal bench, but also opposed the feds overturning all local gun laws. I'd prefer someone take a stand either for decentralism or against it, but, if anything, I think that there can be more of a case made for striking down state gun laws than state business regulations.
I hope so....but I hear that some of the Christian Right types don't trust Brown on the abortion issue....so that might rule her out.