Legal Conservatism After Bostock
“These failures, as noted by Senator Hawley in his speech, can quickly turn into a political liability for a Republican Party that has derived significant power from campaigning on the importance of judicial nominations. Bostock is a wake-up call…of a movement in need of change. In seeking such change, however, the movement should be careful not to make two errors that are currently tempting its loudest critics.” - Law & Liberty
- 1 view
I’m not a libertarian. But I’m definitely starting to consider the Libertarian party a more amenable home for a conservative Christian these days than the Republican. We stand the best chance of preserving some of our liberties with them, at least.
I just decided this the other day and looked up the Libertarian candidate: Jo Jorgensen.
Never heard of her, but her positions look mostly ok, so she’s got my vote. What high standards, eh? What an age… :(
I’ll be doing a lot of writing in. Even at the state level. If we any candidates locally from the handful of conservatives willing to push back a little on some of Trump’s worse behavior, they’d have my vote. Some of the “silent” segment might get my vote. Maybe.
On the topic of the article, it’s not clear to me what the author is really advocating instead of originalism. He’s got some strong points on the weaknesses of originalism, but I’m not at all persuaded that there is a better alternative. SCOTUS has always made decisions that were tilted toward the personal convictions and sensitivities etc. (aka “biases”) of the justices. In the long run, originalism as a philosophy is the best check on that we’re likely to ever have. But is it a guarantee of “conservative” outcomes? No. It really shouldn’t be. The court it is supposed to uphold and interpret law and law isn’t made entirely by conservatives. So sometimes a “conservative decision” (in the sense of court doing what it’s constitutionally supposed to do) is not one with a “conservative outcome.” We have to live with that and resist the urge to become overly idealistic about either the here and now or the future (or the past).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Come to the Libertarian party. Or at least libertarianism as a political ideology. Check out the non-aggression principle. It’s the basic libertarian philosophy. Jo Jorgeson was not my first choice and I was somewhat disappointed when she became the nominee. Personally, I could still vote for her with a clear conscience.
Discussion