IPR Owner Endorses Sen. Sanders for POTUS

warren redlich

In an email sent to IPR editors and contributors earlier today, IPR’s owner, Warren Redlich, 2010 Libertarian Candidate for New York Governor, endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders for President.

Mr. Redlich explained the reasoning behind his endorsement as follows:

“1. Unfortunately I do not think the Libertarian Party will mount a credible campaign for president in 2016. There is hope for the LP in the future, but this year does not look good.

“2. With Rand Paul’s departure, there is no hope left in the GOP. There are still a few libertarian-ish members in Congress, with Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and maybe Sen. Mike Lee (Utah). But none left in the presidential race.

“3. Although I detest Bernie’s economic views, he is by far the most credible anti-war, and anti-drug-war candidate remaining in the race.

“Libertarians are universally opposed to our military adventurism overseas. Sanders opposed the Iraq War, the Kuwait War, and more. While Gary Johnson is a credible critic of the drug war, Sanders has done more on that issue while in office than Johnson ever did as Governor.

“Sanders will have difficulty getting his economic agenda through Congress. But as President he will have the power to end the wars unilaterally without needing congressional support. And we can at least hope that a Sanders Justice Department will end federal interference with state drug law reform efforts.”

In subsequent telephone and email interviews, Mr. Redlich expanded his explanation:

IPR: What has been the initial reaction to this endorsement?

REDLICH: I have Libertarian friends who are angry with this endorsement because they see Senator Sanders as a socialist; I have Libertarian friends who are angry with this endorsement because they love the Libertarian Party/LNC; but I truly believe Senator Sanders is our best hope to end the War on Drugs and to end the wars and military expansion around the globe. He is our best hope for peace.

IPR: What if some last-minute, new candidate emerges as the Libertarian Party nominee in late May? Would you reconsider this endorsement of Senator Sanders?

REDLICH: Generally I don’t think last minute candidates are viable. If it was Ron Paul then sure.

IPR: Are you planning on attending the LP POTUS Nominating Convention in May?

REDLICH: I do not plan to attend the convention. If I was invited I would consider it. I do think there’s some hope for the LP in the future but only when it has a candidate with a simple message and a strategy. I have both myself, but am not ready to run. I’m not sure the LP would support me if I did run, because few in the LP appreciate the idea of a simple message and a strategy. That’s the main reason the party keeps floundering.

IPR: Will you be endorsing Libertarian candidates for Governor, the US Congress or other offices?

REDLICH: Very likely yes. I have done so in the past and will do so again in the future.  See for example: http://westbocanews.com/2014/10/16/west-boca-news-endorses-adrian-wyllie-for-governor.

 

 

106 thoughts on “IPR Owner Endorses Sen. Sanders for POTUS

  1. P.J. Sullivan

    Sanders’s foreign policy record is hardly “anti-war” (though it is marginally better than many other candidates).

  2. Thomas L. Knapp

    My impression of Sanders vis a vis foreign policy and military spending is that he’s … well … Barack Obama. Some non-specific hope-y change-y stuff in his campaign rhetoric, but even to the extent that he sometimes casually mentions “cutting” military spending, it would turn out that he really just means reducing its rate of growth.

    The US military and its various non-uniformed surrounding bureaucracies are, in addition to other things, a government jobs program. And they’re a jobs program that a Democrat can expand without Republicans whining about it like they would if someone proposed to start up FDR’s Civilian Conservation Corps, etc.

  3. NewFederalist

    Oh Noooooo! Say it ain’t so Mr. Bill! (Actually, I can understand Mr. Redlich’s feelings but I’m not sure making an endorsement is really necessary.)

  4. Green W/O/A

    Don’t really disagree with Knapp’s comparison of Sanders to Obama on foreign policy….still, even an Obama-esque foreign policy is preferable to the foreign policy of the GOP candidates or Clinton. There was a time (in the 80s) when Sanders’ foreign policy views were pretty much right on..which is more than can be said for any other major party candidate. At this moment it cannot be denied that Sanders is playing the Ron Paul role this year–he’s the best of the pack on most issues, including foreign policy. Even though I disagree with Sanders strongly on a number of foreign policy issues, It’s quite hard to imagine a Sanders presidency being anywhere near as imperialistic as the Obama presidency, much less the Bush presidency. Realistically, I think it’s fair to speculate that even Gary Johnson is more of a hawk than Sanders.

    Hopefully more and more Libertarians (eg, the same ones who told liberals to vote Paul in 08 or 12 on foreign policy or civil liberties grounds) will consider supporting Sanders as the best hope for liberty.

  5. George Phillies

    While some of our candidates are worse than others, I have been moving increasingly toward agreeing with Redlich about this year’s Presidential candidates.

    We have the fellow who actually has some understanding of campaigning, but who goes out of his way to annoy people for example by discussing the statement of principles.

    We have the fellow demonstrated what he actually thinks of the statement of principles: After his 2012 campaign paid its art person $500,000/year, annualized rate, he is now asking the FEC for permission to demonstrate what fraud in the pursuit of politics actually is, namely taking his 1.5 million dollar 2012 campaign debt and walking away from it, including walking away from the people who did not agree with his proposal.

    We have two gentlemen who are somewhat more socially conservative or socially liberal than you might have expected, but who have identifiable campaign positions or a record of community participation.

    We have several “celebrities”.

    We have several characters who propose that they will not take substantial donations in real money, and who are not billionaires. (OK, one of them might, like me, be a millionaire.)

    We have the fascist warmonger who wants to greatly increase defense spending.

    We have a couple of people who may or may not be nice folks, but who appear to have absolutely no campaign resources.

    We have several people whose campaigns do not appear to have taken off, as witness the lack of funds raised and outreach other than facebook and phone.

    I may support some of them financially, on the grounds they are better than the alternatives, but NOTA looks more attractive as time goes on.

  6. Joseph Buchman Post author

    I posted something similar on Facebook yesterday.

    I wrote:

    ” I’m not sure a Sanders’ administration with a heavy Republican Congress wouldn’t be the best of the likely options — progress on Civil Liberties, and zero movement on his insane economic agenda. That said, I vote on principle/values and not on a horse race for the “winner.””

    This was in response to this post by Apollo Pazell (who also worked as a paid staff member of the GJ2012 campaign):

    “To my friends in the liberty movement, Bernie Sanders strength among young voters is an indicator that the libertarians are failing at effectively delivering their message. The overlap of Ron Paul supporters with Bernie Sanders shows how truly damaging Rand Paul and his team were to the liberty movement. How the policy proposals presented by the libertarians are not being presented well. Republicans and Libertarians who are fighting so hard against Hillary Clinton are ignoring the real demographic threat of losing the largest voting bloc in our entire history.”

  7. Thomas L. Knapp

    Is Sanders the least of the major party evils?

    I think he is, and not just on foreign policy and drug war issues.

    On health care, the US hasn’t had anything even vaguely resembling a free market in more than a century, and has increasingly socialized health care to near totality since the 1960s.

    To put it bluntly, a Sanders-style “Medicare For All” single-payer program would be less damaging than the current Rube Goldberg machine.

    I don’t support single-payer, but if I have to choose between “Medicaid for the poor, Medicare for the elderly, TriCare for retired veterans and HMO/PPO oligarchical socialism for everyone else,” my choice is single-payer.

    Ditto for pretending that Wall Street is “free enterprise” when it is actually socialized risk and privatized profit. I don’t think the government should take over the finance sector, etc., but that would be better than bailing out the fucking casino every time the house goes bust.

    But all that IS “lesser evil” stuff, and I am just not keen on supporting the lesser evil.

  8. Green W/O/A

    Re. healthcare, I don’t pretend that sing-payer is a magic bullet. However, it accomplishes a few things

    1) If there is single payer universal health care, then ordinary Americans don’t have to work for large corporations or the state in order to get decent health care coverage. I think alot of Libertarians fail to recognize how alot of Americans are unable to start small businesses (or work for themselves, or drop out of the corporate economy) because of the prohibitive cost of healthcare.

    2) Single payer health care would compel Congress to take on the power of health care trusts in order to reduce costs. It would force monopolistic institutions like AMA to lower the cost of medical and nursing school, which would mean more medical professionals and less medical costs. At the moment, not only does the USA spend more per capita on healthcare than any other nation, it spends the 2nd biggest amount of taxpayer money (behind Norway) on healthcare. Atm, most of this taxpayer money goes to fund the healthcare of employees of large corporations and the state.

    For these reasons I think single-payer healthcare is a step towards sanity in healthcare, more opportunities for people to start small businesses (and otherwise be employed in ethical occupations without risking their family’s health), and a society with more liberty for everyone in general.

  9. P.J. Sullivan

    I like to say the Democrats are deciding who will be my third choice for president, behind Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.

  10. George Phillies

    The problem, as the Greens demonstrated in 2004, if that a party does not run a Presidential candidate there is a tendency for that party to implodiate.

    Representing a minority opinion, the less important issue are the fine details of the candidate’s positions on issues (our representative of the fascist warmonger branch of Libertarianism shows that there are limits to this attitude), and the more important issue is how that candidate, by being clearly visible on a few core issues, such as ending foreign wars and restoring the Bill of Rights, can leave us in 2017 with a stronger Libertarian Party. “clearly visible” is determined by the strength of the campaign organization and its ability to put out the message and encourage volunteers to mobilize.

  11. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The problem, as the Greens demonstrated in 2004, if that a party does not run a Presidential candidate there is a tendency for that party to implodiate.”

    How did the Greens demonstrate that in 2004? They ran a presidential candidate (David Cobb).

  12. Stewart Flood

    Ummm…so is this an April Fools Day joke that was released early by mistake? Does this mean that IPR is now SPR (Sanders’ Political Report)?

    And does anyone seriously think that Sanders won last night even though Clinton got the majority of the delegates? The primaries are rigged. (Of course we knew that)

  13. Thomas L. Knapp

    Stewart,

    Oddly, I asked Warren the same thing (whether his email scheduler was off and this was intended for April 1st).

    No, IPR is not now “Sanders Political Report.” The newsworthiness of the article is not about Sanders, it’s about a past Libertarian gubernatorial candidate.

  14. Joseph Buchman Post author

    Stewart,

    Not a joke (I double checked).

    And not a SPR. But, perhaps a message to the LP of how being PRINCIPLED (at least on social liberties) generates media, donations and electoral success (or at least seeming success).

    Not sure the coverage of how Hillary got more delegates than Sen. Sanders yesterday helps her v. fires up the outrage at a broken system and plays well for THE BERN.

    That said, at least for me, if not for Warren, I’m inclined to vote Libertarian when I have that change. But I might just vote for Senator Sanders over any of the other R or Ds right now where there is no Libertarian alternative (eg: in the primaries).

  15. Thomas L. Knapp

    Clinton did not “get more delegates” than Sanders in the New Hampshire primary.

    Sanders got 15 delegates, Clinton got nine.

    There are “super delegates” which are not chosen in the primary. The source of the “Hillary got more delegates” nonsense is that six of those “super delegates” have said they support Clinton, making New Hampshire a 15-15 delegate tie, with two “super delegates” uncommitted.

    But those six “Clinton super delegates” are not bound by the primary results or by anything else. They can stop supporting Clinton and start supporting Sanders (or someone else) any time they damn well please. And if he keeps whipping her ass, they probably will.

  16. Bondurant

    I don’t think the Clinton aligned delegates will switch to Sanders? Isn’t the point of super delegates? To usurp the will of primary voters in the event they deviate from the status quo?

    Wouldn’t it be interesting if Trump and Sanders were both thwarted at their conventions?

    Bush v Clinton II coming this November.

  17. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bondurant,

    If Clinton can’t win even with the super delegates, the super delegates will almost certainly switch to someone.

    They might jump on the Sanders bandwagon, or they might withhold their support from either candidate and try to get a brokered convention to nominate e.g. Biden (disclosure: I have a small financial bet on that being exactly what happens).

  18. Joseph Buchman Post author

    “But those six “Clinton super delegates” are not bound by the primary results ” Exactly. That’s why it is the “coverage of how” Hillary got more is, IMO, playing into Sanders’s hands.

  19. Gene Berkman

    We should thank Bernie Sanders for his opposition to the Iraq War, and his vote against the Patriot Act. We should note that in Congress Bernie Sanders worked with Ron Paul on both those issues and others relating to civil liberties.

    But Sen. Sanders is not consistently antiwar. At the first Democrat debate, he defended himself against charges of pacifism by noting that he supported the bombing of Yugoslavia, and he supports the bombing of Syria. Perhaps not as bad as The Donald, who supports the Russian bombing of Syria, but the Sanders message to Serbs and to Syrians: Feel the Burn!

    I will stick with The Libertarian Party in support of former Governor Gary Johnson, who has campaigned for legal marijuana and against the War on Drugs long before Bernie Sanders brought it up. And I have Serbian friends who I would not want to insult by supporting a bomb happy “non-interventionist.”

  20. George Phillies

    The Greens in 2004 ran half a candidate, who was not on the ballot or got 0.1% of the vote in 30 states, and their 2008 vote totals were again way down. The states where Cobb did not run, or so I gatehr from reading Green comments, did poorly afterwards as Green strongholds.

    I seem to recall another poster some time ago noting the Prohibition Party had the same problem, once upon a time, but perhaps they also did poorly because they won.

  21. Robert Capozzi

    Perplexing.

    Were it to come to Trump v Sanders v a non-fringe L, I’d vote for the L and root for Sanders. I don’t see supporting him even if he’s relatively less hurtful to liberty on some issues than other Rs or Ds.

  22. wredlich

    “To put it bluntly, a Sanders-style “Medicare For All” single-payer program would be less damaging than the current Rube Goldberg machine.”

    As bad as the current system is, I don’t go that far. Single payer is a horrible idea, part of Sanders’ economic ideas that I detest.

  23. Gene Berkman

    A couple of comments about the David Cobb Green Party campaign in 2004:
    Jill Stein opposed having a Green Party candidate for President in 2004, as she was working with antiwar Democrats in Massachusetts, and thought that if Greens were seen splitting the anti-Bush vote, it would hurt her campaign for State legislature.

    In 2004, Jill Stein received 21.3% of the vote for State Representative, coming in 2nd, ahead of the Republican. This was a stronger result than she received in any state in her campaign for President in 2012.

    The David Cobb strategy was to run only in states that were solidly Republican or solidly Democrat, and to not run in swing states. As a result, David Cobb was not on the ballot in Ohio. When the John Kerry campaign wanted the Ohio results challenged, and did not want to appear as sore losers, they approached David Cobb to challenge the vote and ask for a recount. Since Cobb was not on the Ohio ballot, he did not have standing to ask for a recount, so Cobb asked Michael Badnarik to ask for a recount, which he did. That showed that at least some Libertarians were solid opponents of George W Bush.

  24. Andy

    I can’t say that I agree with Warren on this one. I rate candidates on what I call a liberty index, and if a candidate scores too low on my liberty index, I will not endorse them.

    Bernie Sanders does not make the cut for me. Sure, he may be good to OK on a few issues, but he’s also bad on a bunch of other issues, and while he may not be as toxic as Hillary Clinton in some regards, he’s actually kind of dangerous from the stand point that he makes socialism sound like it is some kind of happy, wonderful thing, and he’s also too connected to the political establishment for my tastes.

    The election season is a lot more fun when you feel like you’ve got a candidate for whom you can root, but in this instance I think that it is better to endorse nobody.

  25. Steve Scheetz

    We fight this battle every single election. “Libertarians can’t win, so before any candidate is even named, I am going to go for the lesser of two evils… (at least the one who sells me that he /she is the lesser of two evils… Even though I know each candidate is giving a sales pitch that amounts to an outright lie, I am going for it!)

    I have one thing to ask about this sort of mindset….

    How has this been working for you so far?

    Sub questions to help answer the main question..
    How many people have been murdered by drones, in your name, so far? How bout Cruise Missiles?
    What is the actual debt of the United States?
    What are the interest payments?
    How much deficit spending is done each budget (assuming there is one)
    How many tax increases have been seen over the past 5 years?
    How much wasteful spending went to crony type companies?

    just something to think about as you work to pay your taxes..

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  26. Steve m

    The last thing I am going to do before I die is change my registration to one of the major political parties, so that when I die there will be one less bastard on the planet. until then I am voting against those SOBs.

  27. Bondurant

    Supporting Sanders defeats the purpose of being active with the Libertarian Party. The entire idea, to me, is that the lesser of two evils is still evil and not a valid choice. Disappointing to read this but to each his own. It makes me all the more grateful for the folks all over the country that put in the effort to run for office or actively promote true liberty.

  28. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Joseph Buchman: 5 paragraph essay and pets how to delete emails from one sender on iphone 6 help with a critical essay creative writing stories about love https://nyusternldp.blogs.stern.nyu.edu/how-to-retrieve-deleted-messages-on-my-ipad/ conclusions in research go here custom article review ghostwriter services au https://www.upaya.org/teaching/different-types-of-academic-essays/21/ meldonium in racehorses source https://heystamford.com/writing/purchase-speech-outline/8/ buy viagra in cvs buy coursework cocaine use with viagra http://admissions.iuhs.edu/?page_id=viagra-radio-ads-fox-news-sirius-radio writing a great essay go thesis format usyd descriptive essay example about a place will viagra help with premature ejaculation http://v-nep.org/classroom/case-case-study/04/ thesis on energy efficiency go proofread online compare and contrast essays for sale apply best buy case study assignment iowa state university creative writing program term paper writing for hire usa how to write a university essay http://teacherswithoutborders.org/teach/college-essays-online/21/ follow link The overlap of Ron Paul supporters with Bernie Sanders shows how truly damaging Rand Paul and his team were to the liberty movement.

    Yes, many of Ron Paul’s past supporters now support Sanders and Trump. Paul attracted a lot of angry, ideologically confused, anti-Establishment types. Now, many people see Sanders and Trump as being anti-Establishment.

    I don’t blame Ron Paul for that. I blame the LP for its failure to embrace Paul’s uncompromising, radical, antiwar rhetoric. Republican Paul was actually more radical that either Barr/Root or Johnson/Gray.

    The LP wussed out. Too many LP leaders feared appearing radical. They wanted to appear nice and safe, warm and fuzzy, and well within the Establishment mainstream. A wee bit critical of Establishment policies, perhaps, but in a nice and respectful way. The sort of political party you can introduce to your folks at Thanksgiving dinner.

    And of course, instead of mirroring Ron Paul’s radical rhetoric, the LP was busy with internal battles in Oregon and in some other states.

  29. Robert Capozzi

    rtaa: Paul attracted a lot of angry, ideologically confused, anti-Establishment types.

    me: Who have now moved on to Sanders and Trump, you admit. The fringe likes the style of fringe candidates, and seem not so interested in the substance. It sounds like the fringe is fickle, not something to build a real movement on.

  30. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Single payer health care would probably result in a two-tier system, much as in education.

    * Free, crappy, public hospitals for most Americans. Crowded rooms. Second-rate doctors. Long waiting lists — perhaps months — for critical health care.

    * High quality, private hospitals for those willing and able to foot the bill. Less crowded, or even private, rooms. First-rate doctors. Immediate care.

    Bernie Sanders will, of course, receive care at the best private hospitals — just like all those foreign dictators and celebrities who support socialized health care at home, but fly to the U.S. for medical care.

    Even so, such a single payer system might be better than what we have now. KABC-AM’s John McIntyre has said that our current “mixed system” combines the worst of single payer and the free market.

  31. Thomas L. Knapp

    The matter of the LP versus Ron Paul is not a one-sided affair.

    Yes, the LP failed to fully embrace and promote a thoroughly non-interventionist, pro-peace policy, as it should have done.

    On the other hand, Ron Paul’s decision to run as a candidate of an authoritarian statist party, as well as his hard post-1988 turn toward appealing for freedom only for the un-queer, the un-swarthy and those from the right side of an imaginary line drawn on the ground by the street gang in Washington made it difficult for the LP to embrace him personally even as much as it did (which was far too much — the LNC members who voted in favor of endorsing him in 2007 should have been summarily booted from any future role in party leadership at the 2008 convention).

  32. Robert Capozzi

    tk: LNC members who voted in favor of endorsing him in 2007

    LNC 07: In the event that Republican primary voters select a candidate other than Congressman Paul in February of 2008, the Libertarian National Committee invites Congressman Ron Paul to seek the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party to be decided in Denver, Colorado during the Memorial Day weekend of 2008.

    me: Invites =/= endorses

  33. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    I agree that single-payer is a bad idea.

    I also agree with McIntyre that the existing system is even worse.

    If I had to consider single-payer versus the existing system as an isolated question and without regard to other alternatives, I’d choose single-payer over the existing system.

    There’s a degree to which “without regard to other alternatives” does apply. The existing system enjoys considerable inertial mass and support for single-payer is a large truck trying to generate momentum to move that mass in its direction, while support for a free market is a gnat pushing that mass in the opposite direction.

    But I don’t consider it an isolated question. The politicians who support single-payer also support a lot of other bad things. They aren’t going to get my assistance or support, any more than are the politicians who support continuing to tweak the current bureaucratic/kleptocratic healthcare mess.

    I’m going to stick with the gnats. Henry Clay said he’d rather be right than be president. In the context of political parties, that question resolves to being right versus being in power. Since the LP doesn’t have the option of being in power even if it was willing to be wrong to achieve that, it might as well continue to be right.

  34. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    Pray enlighten me: Which other individuals did the LNC deign to “invite” by name to seek its 2008 presidential nomination?

    If the Red Hot Chili Peppers announce they’re looking for a new guitarist and will be accepting audition tapes, but only publicly “invite” one particular guitarist to send them such a tape, they are endorsing and promoting that guitarist, whether or not the guitarist accepts the invitation or ends up being chosen.

  35. Robert capozzi

    TK, definitely was an unprecedented invitation and probably ill advised. But it wasn’t an endorsement. That’s an overstatement by you, imo.

  36. Stewart Flood

    Very much an overstatement. I was there (alternate) and observed the debate over the resolution that (as I recall) Bob Barr presented. It was an invitation to come back to the LP if the Rs rejected his candidacy. It was not an offer of the nomination or an endorsement.

  37. Thomas L. Knapp

    It was an attempt to scam some of Paul’s notoriety, and that attempt depended entirely upon it being seen by his supporters as an endorsement, which the LNC well understood at the time that it made the endorsement.

    Sorry, no backsies just because it seemed like a good idea at the time and seems monumentally stupid now.

  38. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    February 11, 2016 at 08:58

    It was an attempt to scam some of Paul’s notoriety, and that attempt depended entirely upon it being seen by his supporters as an endorsement, which the LNC well understood at the time that it made the endorsement.”

    Ron Paul has had a Life Membership in the Libertarian Party since the 1980’s. So Ron Paul was still an LP member at the time that the LNC invited him to seek the party’s presidential nomination, and he’s still an LP member to this day (and note that he quit the Republican Party after getting screwed at the Republican National Convention in 2012).

    So the LNC was inviting somebody who was a party member to seek the nomination, and considering that was somebody who was getting a lot of publicity and who had a large following, this was a good way to advertise the party to a demographic that would be more likely to support the party than most of the general public.

  39. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    How many other members — current or “life” — did the LNC propose and pass resolutions “inviting” to seek the party’s presidential nomination?

    Don’t bother going to look that number up, as I have it right here. The number is: Zero. Ever.

    Pretending that the resolution didn’t constitute an endorsement doesn’t pass the laugh test.

  40. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    I thought it was a grand idea to invite Ron Paul as an LP presidential contender in 2008. One of the LNC’s rare admirable decisions.

    Of course, I voted for Paul in both 2008 and 2012 as a write-in.

    Don’t know who I’ll vote for this year. I’m not currently excited by any of the LP candidates. Can’t stand any of the Dem or GOP candidates, Rand Paul included. Can’t stand Bloomberg.

    I am glad that Sanders and Trump are upsetting some apple carts. More show than anything substantive, but still, fun to watch. Fun to see the Establishment types getting upset. Fun to see Jeb and Hillary distraught over possibly losing the coronations to which they feel entitled.

  41. Thomas L. Knapp

    JR,

    When did IPR ever claim to be an “objective source” for anything?

    What it actually claims is that it is “dedicated to covering America’s third parties and independent candidates, and providing a forum for the intelligent discussion thereof.”

    Sanders, as a long-time third party and independent politician prior to throwing in for the Democratic nomination, is certainly fair game for at least some of that discussion.

    The endorsement of Redlich, a past third party candidate for governor of New York, makes the topic doubly relevant.

  42. Nvg

    You endorsed Sanders?That’s pretty much the worse candidate in the race.If the Republican candidates I support don’t make it I’ll vote CP if their on my ballot.Then Libertarian if they don’t work out.I’ll never look at “Independent” Political Report the same after this.

  43. Andy

    George Phillies keeps putting out this bogus claim that Ron Paul is a racist. Here’s a video that debunks this.

    The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul

  44. Joseph Buchman Post author

    This is an endorsement by the owner of IPR, not an endorsement by the editors and contributors. In my experience here over the past 3 1/2 years, the owner has never influenced the content.

    The fact that the owner of IPR, who also runs a news site in Florida of note, is endorsing a former Independent running as a (pseudo) Democrat, is worthy of coverage.

    So, I’m still looking at IPR the same way, or even in a more favorable light. This should be an interesting year, and I’d expect IPR readership will soon be going through the roof as more Independent candidates and potential third, fourth, fifth, whatever parties emerge.

    So please keep reading, and FEEL FREE TO POST CRITICAL COMMENTS. That’s what makes this what it is, and it is, if nothing else, a hell of a lot of fun for those of us who hang around here.

    (and occasionally break some significant news)

    or so it seems to me.

    Joe

  45. Robert Capozzi

    tk: It was an attempt to scam some of Paul’s notoriety, and that attempt depended entirely upon it being seen by his supporters as an endorsement, which the LNC well understood at the time that it made the endorsement.

    me: Have LNCers at the time told you this was their motive? Or are you a mind reader?

  46. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Have LNCers at the time told you this was their motive? Or are you a mind reader?”

    If I catch a guy in a ski mask walking out my back door carrying my TV, I don’t have to ask him to know whether he’s stealing it or just borrowing it, nor would I nor anyone else take seriously his protests that it’s the latter.

  47. Robert Capozzi

    tk, you are kidding, right? A trespasser in the act with a mask seems like a slam dunk as to what’s going on.

    It seemed to be an inappropriate move at the time to me, too, and it still does. It may have been appropriate to invite him to rejoin the LP publicly and left it at that. They might have taken some digs at the GOP for good measure as being hostile to liberty or some such.

    My sense is that most in the LP would have supported RP1 as the LP nominee in 08, but then I’m not the best judge of such things. iirc, soon after the LNC did this, NewsletterGate 1.0 started.

    You might look up the word “notoriety,” fwiw.

  48. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    Yes, if Ron Paul had decided to seek the LP’s nomination in 2008, he would have won it easily.

    I’m well aware of the meaning of the word “notoriety.”

  49. Robert Capozzi

    tk, in the context of your assertion, the LNC would not have wanted to “scam” RP1’s “notoriety,” I wouldn’t think. More like they MAY have wanted to benefit from RP1’s then new-found public stature, or some such.

  50. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    “Notoriety” is “the state of being famous or well known for some bad quality or deed.”

    Paul was famous/well known for seeking the Republican Party’s presidential nomination — a bad deed.

    The LNC was trying to gravy train on that notoriety.

  51. Robert Capozzi

    tk, seems a bit tortured to me, but whatever floats your linguistic boat, I guess.

    For me, RP1’s, 2’s, or GJ’s seeking the R nomination was not a “bad deed.” They are all lessarchists wanting to change the country’s trajectory from morearchism to lessarchism (although for me RP2 is a tough call). I seriously doubt the LNC collectively thought, Hey, RP1 is doing a bad deed, let’s suck up to him and his supporters.

    Of course, a plumbliner might say running for any office is a bad deed, especially if one takes a government salary. Stolen money and all that.

  52. Mark Axinn

    Go Bernie, Go!

    No, that does not mean I support him for President, but wouldn’t it be an incredibly super-groovy thing if he actually won the Democratic nomination…

    Which I don’t expect to happen.

    Say I support Gary Johnson or John McAfee or Austin Petersen or whomever the LP nominee will be for President. Shouldn’t I want Bernie to win for the Demos? And another extremist, say Cruz, for the Repubs.

    Or say I am fed up with the horrible cast of characters out there, especially Clinton II and Bush III, both of whom are beyond revolting. Again, I want Bernie to win the Demo and Cruz to win for Repubs.

    Bravo Warren.

  53. George Phillies

    Andy, Here is the video that proves my claim

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39801_Video>Ron_Paul_Gives_Speech_on_Civil_War_in_Front_of_Giant_Confederate_Flag/comments/#ctop

    the man is a Civil War Historical Reconstructionist. The funny part of this, of course, is we have the fine postwar letter from (Confederate) Senator Yancy, in which he says that of course the civil war was about slavery, and then proceeds to flay advocates of alternate interpretations.

    There were also his newsletters, where first he said the racist stuff was taken out of context, and then he said someone else wrote it, but he skipped around saying that the material in question was evil and anti-Libertarian.

  54. Thomas L. Knapp

    Good points, Mark.

    I think Sanders has already been (buzzword alert) transformative as a Democratic candidate.

    McCarthy didn’t win the nomination in 1968, but his campaign, combined with Humphrey going down hard in the general election, guaranteed that four years later the Democrats would nominate an antiwar candidate.

    McGovern’s a little more complicated. Facially, it was more Nixon than McGovern who made Carter inevitable, but still, after McGovern the Democrats were considered the doves at least for awhile, and he cast the die on the Democrats being the pro-choice party.

    I think Sanders has already managed a McCarthy style coup. Even if Clinton wins the nomination THIS time, the NEXT nominee won’t be able to be quite so Wall Street whorish and by the next election cycle the Democrats will be openly overwhelmingly for single-payer. And both of those things go double if he’s the nominee, even if he loses the general.

  55. Caryn Ann Harlos

    ===When did IPR ever claim to be an “objective source” for anything?===

    Never. Even when the articles chosen are given without editorial commentary, the very selection of the article is an editorial decision and influenced by the biases and desires of the volunteer.

    People confuse the “independent” in the title to mean something other than it does in context.

    I oppose Warren’s endorsement, but it is his to make, and certainly IPR newsworthy.

    Then again someone on the LP is running on repudiating the Party itself.

  56. Stewart Flood

    And don’t forget that most of the others are wearing tin foil hats. Not all, but most.

    My comment earlier about this being Sanders’ Political Report was obviously meant as a joke. I guess I forgot to put in the 😉

  57. Gene Berkman

    Tom – Jimmy Carter positioned himself in 1972 as anti-McGovern. Carter gave the nominating speech for Sen. Henry Jackson of Washington, who was pro-war and in favor of more military spending. Murray Rothbard dubbed Jackson “The Senator from Boeing.”

    The nomination of Jimmy Carter in 1976 was an attempt to get over the defeat the Democrats suffered when George McGovern ran in 1972. Carter played to the Democrat elements that supported the Vietnam War and would later be neocons, and he was the first “born-again” candidate for President.

    Also, the Democrats created “superdelegates” as a way to ensure that Democrat officeholders would be delegates to their national convention, and would have power to veto a “radical” like McGovern. Those superdelegates might ensure that Hilary Clinton gets the nomination this year, even if Bernie Sanders gets more votes in the primaries. Former Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania discussed this on MSNBC this morning, noting that in 2008 Hilary Clinton received more primary votes than Obama, but lost the nomination because of superdelegates.

  58. Mark Axinn

    Tom,

    Thanks for bringing up Eugene McCarthy, who was the first candidate I supported for office (I was 12). Of course, the main campaign issue (perhaps the only issue) in ’68 was Vietnam.

    Here’s an interesting free-market aside that most people don’t know:

    We did not have the stringent campaign finance laws then which are currently in effect. After the election, McCarthy said that if it wasn’t for five big contributors who each gave him 100K, he never would have been able to attract as much media coverage and voter recognition as he did. God bless those liberal capitalists whose financial support allowed an anti-war candidate to be heard.

    But, alas, McCarthy was overshadowed by a rich phony, Bobby Kennedy, and after Kennedy’s death, Humphrey’s campaign took charge.

    Incredibly, Nixon was the peace candidate that November.

  59. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Hi Stewart, sorry for any confusion, but my comment was directed to this one, not yours:

    ==Wow, hardly, “independent” , is it?
    IPR really is losing all credibility as an objective source of alternative political news.==

  60. langa

    First, I wouldn’t vote for Sanders if he was running against Hitler and Stalin. Of course, the same goes for Clinton, Trump, Cruz, etc. I just don’t do the “lesser of evils” thing. If a candidate’s agenda would, on balance, make the world less libertarian, I won’t support them. Period.

    Second, I think people underestimate the damage that Sanders’ crazy economic ideas could do. Sure, most of Congress would disagree with him, but there are ways of getting around that (such as the use of executive orders, bureaucratic appointments, political capital, etc.).

    Finally, leave it to Phillies to bring up the crackpot smears against Ron Paul. Hey George, what about Lysander Spooner, who openly advocated violence against slaveholders, but also strongly supported the right of the Southern states to secede? Does that make him a “white racist” too?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner#Abolitionism

  61. Robert Capozzi

    Langa, you are correct in this sense: Buying into the CSA was within its legal powers to secede is definitely not proof of a person being a racist. It’s also the case that many racists hold that position. So while guilt by association is an unwise way to proceed, it’s also the case that many have the impulse to pronounce guilt by association, and many others will ask questions to determine whether the CSA revisionist is a hater or not.

    Why there’s an element in the LM who revel in CSA revisionism is really beyond me.

  62. Andy Craig

    Flying a confederate flag in a political context because you support the legality of secession, is like flying a swastika because you like vegetarianism and Hitler was a vegetarian. You don’t then get to call foul when people make the logical assumption that you’re expressing support for the regime whose banner you’re waving (or have your stage decorated with).

    If you want to argue peaceful secession should be legal, great (it already is in a lot of countries), but you’re not going to get there by reminding Americans of this single least sympathetic case of secession imaginable, that hundreds of thousands of Americans died defeating. Instead of promoting pro-CSA “It wasn’t really about slavery!!!!” revisionism, proponents of modern secession should be doing everything to differentiate, to explain how what they’re talking about is nothing like the Civil War and the Confederacy and entirely more like what we’ve seen Quebec and Scotland consider (and narrowly reject). But of course, the theoretical right of Maine or Hawaii or Alaska to leave the Union has never been what “the League of the South” et al were about: it really was about trying to re-write the well-earned reputation of the Confederacy and, even worse, trying to promote the position that “Southern” culture is irrevocably linked to celebrating the CSA and Jefferson Davis’s gang of criminal thugs.

    I like Ron Paul, on the whole. I’d still vote for him. But this, alongside abortion and immigration, is one of the topics where I’d be holding my nose in doing so.

  63. Andy Craig

    ….and really, it remains a moot theoretical exercise when secession couldn’t come close to passing a referendum in any state, nor is there any particularly serious movement advocating it, outside of maybe HI and AK, and neither of those is that serious.

    Whether or not a state could secede, is meaningless when none of them want to. If that changed, it’s likely they’d ultimately be able to peacefully secede. But there’s no sign that’s going to change.

  64. Mike K

    The thing that no one has brought up here, not surpisingly, is that Libertarians should already know that campaign promises mean nothing. Look no further than Hope and Change anti war Obama.

    I had a great discussion with Matt Cholko about this and we both agreed that we want the most ineffective candidate in office. One that cannot effectively expand government even more. One who while appointing people to cabinet positions appoints people who focus more on government BS, rather than enforcing the mountains of laws in the books. One who cannot “work across the aisle” to ram through more spending on defense, increased drug wars, etc.

    To me, those two candidates are bumbling idiot Sanders and Donald Duck…

    I don’t endorse either one, and neither are ideal… but from a practical stand point, these are the ones I’d rather see elected because they will grow government less than the others.

  65. Stewart Flood

    The problem, of course, is that the past two administrations have “ruled” by executive order. Look at all the damage that Soetoro and Bush did using executive orders over the past 15 years. And this last year of King Barry is starting off bad with executive orders that should get him impeached — but won’t.

    If the Ds have the White House but not Congress, it doesn’t matter whether it is Clinton or Sanders sitting in the seat. Power will continue to be abused through executive order.

    The same holds true if the Rs have it and the Ds take over control of Congress. It is even more likely if it is Trump, who will just do what he wants without regard for anything Congress says.

    And the worst scenario of course is either Ds or Rs controlling both branches.

  66. langa

    Buying into the CSA was within its legal powers to secede is definitely not proof of a person being a racist. It’s also the case that many racists hold that position.

    It has also been frequently noted that most of the people who have been responsible for recent mass shootings have been under the influence of antidepressants or other psychiatric drugs. Is it therefore logical, or even reasonable, to assume, absent any other evidence, that someone using such drugs is planning to go out and commit mass murder?

    The bottom line is that no one who has seriously studied Ron Paul’s long record of public actions and statements has any legitimate basis for considering him to be a racist. Those who say otherwise are ideologically motivated smear artists, plain and simple.

  67. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The bottom line is that no one who has seriously studied Ron Paul’s long record of public actions and statements has any legitimate basis for considering him to be a racist. ”

    Maybe not. But anyone who has seriously studied Ron Paul’s long record of public actions and statements can’t help but conclude that he’s been happy to appeal to racists, promote racists and raise money from racists. That has, and should have, political consequences.

  68. langa

    Flying a confederate flag in a political context because you support the legality of secession, is like flying a swastika because you like vegetarianism and Hitler was a vegetarian. You don’t then get to call foul when people make the logical assumption that you’re expressing support for the regime whose banner you’re waving (or have your stage decorated with).

    You don’t seem to grasp the idea that it is possible to support certain aspects of a person or organization, while simultaneously condemning other aspects of that same person or organization. For example, if I put up a poster of Murray Rothbard on my wall, it would not be a “logical assumption” that I support or agree with every opinion he ever expressed, or every position he ever advocated, would it? Similarly, can’t Ron Paul support the right of the CSA to secede from the USA, while still condemning the CSA’s policies on slavery? Is there no place for nuanced thought in your world? Is everything a Dubya-style “you’re either for us or against us” dichotomy? Heck, you admit at the end of your comment that you like and support Ron Paul, even though you strongly disagree with him on certain things. In other words, you take a nuanced view of him, instead of treating him like a hero or a villain from a comic book. Why won’t you allow him to take a similarly nuanced view of the Civil War?

    Instead of promoting pro-CSA “It wasn’t really about slavery!!!!” revisionism…

    There’s nothing “revisionist” about Ron Paul’s views on the Civil War. Scroll back up, click on the link I posted, and read the “Abolitionism” section of Spooner’s Wikipedia page. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph. Spooner’s positions on slavery, secession, and the war were virtually identical to those espoused by Ron Paul and other so-called “neo-confederate” libertarians. How is agreeing with a view that was advocated by one of the leading abolitionists of the time in any way racist or revisionist?

    …the theoretical right of Maine or Hawaii or Alaska to leave the Union has never been what “the League of the South” et al were about…

    For someone who complains so often about “straw man” arguments, you sure use a lot of them. To my knowledge, Ron Paul has never been associated or affiliated in any way with the League of the South. If you have any evidence to the contrary, it would be nice if you would present it, rather than continue to try to sneak in these little “guilt by association” smears.

  69. Thomas L. Knapp

    “To my knowledge, Ron Paul has never been associated or affiliated in any way with the League of the South. If you have any evidence to the contrary, it would be nice if you would present it”

    I guess it depends what you mean by “associated.” Paul’s former chief of staff, Lew Rockwell, was a “founding member” of the League of the South (according to the organization itself — I understand he denies, at least, current membership). As chairman of the US House Committee on Financial Services’ Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy, the first witness Paul ever invited to testify at a hearing was Thomas DiLorenzo, an “Affiliated Scholar” of the League of the South Institute.

    I don’t see any point in hunting up further “associations” unless you want to clarify what you mean by “associated,” since the above may not meet your threshold.

  70. langa

    …anyone who has seriously studied Ron Paul’s long record of public actions and statements can’t help but conclude that he’s been happy to appeal to racists, promote racists and raise money from racists.

    Perhaps so. I have neither the time nor the desire to investigate all the people with whom Ron Paul has had personal and/or professional relationships over the years, let alone all the views those people might have expressed.

    However, if all Phillies had said was something similar to what you said, I probably wouldn’t have responded at all. But instead of merely applying the “racist” label to RP’s friends or associates, he applied it to RP himself. And, as usual, he made the accusation with nothing remotely resembling proof.

  71. langa

    I don’t see any point in hunting up further “associations” unless you want to clarify what you mean by “associated,” since the above may not meet your threshold.

    I was referring to some form of direct association. For example, has he ever been a member of the organization? Has he ever spoken at one of their meetings? Has he ever donated money to them?

    Things like that.

  72. Thomas L. Knapp

    langa,

    I don’t know whether or not Paul has spoken at any League of the South events. I’ll see what he can find out about that. I do recall that he appeared on “Political Cesspool,” the radio show of the racist Council of Conservative Citizens, and I seem to recall he may have spoken at their events as well.

    But as you point out, I’ve never called Paul a racist, at least that I remember. I’ve never really considered his personal views to be that important. After all, he’s a politician, so good luck finding out what he actually believes about anything.

  73. William Saturn

    Warren,

    With the death of Antonin Scalia, would you reconsider your endorsement considering the kind of judge (using opposition to Citizens United as a litmus test) Sanders would appoint to the Court?

  74. Thane Eichenauer

    Justice Scalia is dead and will presumably be replaced. Bernie Sanders positions on war and drug prohibition don’t change as a result. I don’t see why Redlich would change his endorsement just because one Supreme Court justice is going to be replaced. Citizens United doesn’t trump that.

    That being said I don’t think that Bernie Sanders has a very good anti-war position. I hear he is bringing up past US government war perfidy which is promising. Whether any of his promises or positions make it to execution is a toss up in my eyes.

    https://www.bing.com/search?q=Bernie+Sanders+site%3Aantiwar.com

  75. William Saturn

    If Sanders nominates a fellow modern socialist/progressive to the Court, then our rights will likely be modified negatively with the new majority. Free speech will be chilled with the Court upholding potential “hate speech” bans based on the right not to be offended, and upholding censorship of the Internet to promote “fairness.” The Second Amendment will be weakened with corrosive gun control executive orders upheld as constitutional. Executive power will be expanded with the Court inventing presidential powers to circumvent Congress and legislate from the oval office. There’s so many additional problems that could arise. A real threat to liberty opened up yesterday when Scalia’s death created a vacancy in the Court. The stakes of this election grew exponentially since it guarantees the next president will nominate a justice that will either maintain the status quo or create a new, more dangerous majority.

  76. Thomas L. Knapp

    William,

    There are at least three upcoming vacancies (Ginsburg, Kennedy and Breyer) that are likely to occur in the next presidential term, so the majority is going to be heavily modified one way or another. Why should anyone have a strong preference between a “progressive” judicial tyranny and a “conservative” one?

  77. William Saturn

    Conservative jurists (more often than not) maintain the status quo. Progressives will not. In a perfect world, Andrew Napolitano would be the next Supreme Court justice. I think that would be a top choice among many libertarians. Now, would Justice Napolitano be more of a textualist like Justice Scalia, seeing the Constitution as dead and as an institution to strike back against unconstitutional government excess? Or would he be more like Justice Ginsberg, reading words into a “living” Constitution to invent powers for government to restrict rights to promote “fairness”?

  78. Thomas L. Knapp

    William,

    “Conservative jurists (more often than not) maintain the status quo.”

    That’s an assertion I’ve seen little evidence for, unless by “status quo” you mean “desires of the establishment” rather than “existing state of affairs.”

  79. William Saturn

    I can cite two landmark cases right off the top in which the recent Court majority has rightfully struck against government excesses supported by the dissenting progressive justices: Citizens United and Heller. Just one change of vote would have eliminated important First Amendment and Second Amendment rights. All the potential decisions I mentioned earlier add to this restriction of liberty and increase of government power.

  80. Thomas L. Knapp

    So? I can cite two landmark cases right off the top in which the recent Court majority has rightly struck against government excesses supported by the dissenting conservative justices: Obergefell and Miller v. Alabama (followed by Montgomery v. Louisiana, in which the margin was two votes).

    The court is about to change, in one direction or the other, as the next president will almost certainly appoint either three or four new justices and upset the existing balance. I don’t give a tinker’s damn which direction it changes in — because both likely directions are equally bad. So I don’t see any reason to give the court’s makeup much weight in choosing a presidential candidate to support.

  81. William Saturn

    Obergefell actually expanded government (see https://saturnsrepository.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/obergefell-v-hodges-and-the-cult-of-the-court/) but I am not interested in arguing that right now.

    For me, the issues in this country right now that I feel are most important to securing liberty are keeping the government out of the Internet, maintaining the right to dissent, and protecting gun rights to protect the people against government. In my opinion, those affect the liberty of far more people than sentencing guidelines and government-recognized marriages.

  82. Thomas L. Knapp

    Right — you think the issues you care about are more important than the issues others care about. And everyone else feels the same way.

    Like I said, I don’t see the coming changes in SCOTUS going anywhere but downhill regardless of who does the appointing or who gets appointed. So I won’t be one of those placing a lot of weight on SCOTUS makeup when thinking about who I’d most like or dislike as president.

  83. William Saturn

    I think most people do think issues they care about are more important than issues others care about. I know that others don’t feel the same as I do, but I wish to express why I think the way I do.

    A progressive Court will be able to approve massive sweeping changes to the way we exercise our rights. Did you watch the Democratic debate earlier this week? Both candidates agreed with Obama’s abuse of executive powers, including Bernie Sanders. One can assume President Sanders will also abuse executive powers, perhaps more so than Obama. An opposition Congress can do nothing to stop it. What can Congress do if President Sanders legislates gun control and speech bans from the oval office with a Supreme Court in his back pocket? Impeachment? I doubt it. Many in Congress support the withering of our rights.

    Generally, conservative justices do not invent powers for government that government does not have. This is what progressives do and much of it comes from the view that the Constitution is a living document.

  84. William Saturn

    Langa,

    I never said Scalia was a libertarian. However, you have not shown how any of the above demonstrates he was not a “defender of the Constitution.”

    The Constitution is not necessarily a libertarian instrument, but it guarantees several fundamental God-given liberties as I outlined above. A textualist interpretation of the Constitution is far more “liberty-friendly” than the “living Constitution” interpretation of modern progressivism. I will admit that I admire the Warren Court’s expansion of individual rights and civil liberties, but I am under no delusion that that is the direction a modern progressive Court would go. Whereas the goal of traditional progressivism was the protection of civil liberties and the rights of dissenters, modern progressivism is more interested in promoting so-called fairness at the expense of liberty. For example, the concept of political correctness has warped modern progressivism with its so-called “right not to be offended” that universities have shifted from being beacons of free expression to echo chambers that rival North Korea in suppression of free thought. It’s wrongheaded to compare the effects of the relative benignity of conservatism with the destruction of liberties under the malignant ideology of modern progressivism.

    Hopefully, I misinterpreted your final comment, but are you saying that one who merely commits the Sin of disagreeing with you belongs in Hell?

  85. langa

    I never said Scalia was a libertarian. However, you have not shown how any of the above demonstrates he was not a “defender of the Constitution.”

    You’ve got to be kidding. Denial of habeas corpus doesn’t violate the Fifth Amendment? The NSA’s spying and the TSA’s groping doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment? Crafting an opinion that ostensibly upholds the right to bear arms, but actually contains numerous caveats that can be used as precedent to legitimize future gun control laws, doesn’t undermine the Second Amendment? Seriously? With “friends” like Scalia, the Constitution doesn’t need any enemies.

    For example, the concept of political correctness has warped modern progressivism with its so-called “right not to be offended” that universities have shifted from being beacons of free expression to echo chambers that rival North Korea in suppression of free thought.

    You’re correct about what’s going on at college campuses, but you’re wrong if you think the SCOTUS has either the desire or the ability to stop it. The Obergefell decision is the latest example of the Court’s refusal to go against the tide of public opinion. Another example is abortion. How many times have we heard that if we’ll just elect enough Republican presidents, then they’ll fill the Court with judges who will overturn Roe. Yet, despite having numerous opportunities, with a majority appointed by Republicans, the Court has repeatedly declined to do so, and in one case (the name escapes me right now), they even cited a possible public backlash as one of the reasons. Bottom line: If public sentiment turns in favor of “hate speech” bans, then those bans will be rubber-stamped by the Court, regardless of its ideological makeup.

    Hopefully, I misinterpreted your final comment, but are you saying that one who merely commits the Sin of disagreeing with you belongs in Hell?

    I am saying that a person who intentionally facilitates tyranny belongs in Hell. If such a person doesn’t belong there, then who does?

  86. Thomas L. Knapp

    For all the hullabaloo about Scalia’s “originalism” and “textualism,” his actual written opinions for the court out him as pretty much a “living constitutionalist” on steroids. In any given case, he decided how he wanted things to come out and then mashed the Constitution until it fit into the box he had crafted for it. See, for example, Raich v. Gonzalez, where he interpreted the Interstate Commerce Clause to apply not just to interstate commerce, and not even just to intrastate commerce that might “affect” interstate commerce, but to any practice in intrastate commerce that might have any effect whatsoever on Congress’s schemes for regulating interstate commerce.

  87. langa

    Yes, Scalia uses the same modus operandi as all the other SC justices. First, he decides on a preferred outcome (usually based on either personal or political factors). Second, he looks for legal principles and precedents that would support that preferred outcome. Finally, he either ignores or rationalizes away any legal principles or precedents that might conflict with that preferred outcome. The idea that the justices are simply applying “the law” to each case in an impartial, almost mechanical fashion is a ridiculous myth.

  88. Pingback: 2016/02/11 – Dr. Joseph Buchman PhD and Dr. Robin Falkov – Health Technologies – The Other Side of Midnight

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *