What the hell is this Kennedy post all about?? Is there some person out there worth taking seriously that I’m not aware of who thinks that Republicans never falter on judicial nominations? Who exactly are you talking to?
Here’s my response: The POINT is that the liberal activist and libertarian activist forms of judicial activism are deeply different impulses. They can’t be incorporated under a single “livinig constitution,” “progressive” rubric.
Here’s the irate person’s response: “Fair enough, I agree, but I didn’t get that from the post.”
What I have to admit: Then I failed to get my message across.
And, as I said in the thread: Remember that I’ve been consistently critical of all those so-called conservatives who think they’re too GOOD to be Republicans. I just want to explain why being a Republican is GOOD.
March 19th, 2013 | 10:11 am
I think we can see both “liberal activism” and “libertarian activism” combined in the thought of Oliver Wendel Holmes, but you’re probably right that it’s not combined much anymore. OWH is still a hero of both groups. He defended economic liberties and at the same time attempted to enshrine a “free marketplace of ideas” on the cultural side of things (mainly in free speech cases).
It might clarify things to identify exactly what the “liberal activism” on the court is and what “libertarian activism” is. To draw a distinction, liberal activism will get into debatable notions of WHAT the Constitution is that libertarians don’t, namely a LIVING DOCUMENT. I don’t recall ever hearing I’ve ever heard libertarians make a living constitution argument at least.
Recently even liberals have begun embracing textualism and originalism (usually read in a way that favors their policies); I wouldn’t be surprised if liberals and libertarian jurisprudence coincided alot more in the future, as long as the case doesn’t pertain to an economic issue
March 19th, 2013 | 11:57 am
In following your comment on the “good” republican, allow me to suggest that both political organizations have been corrupted by modernity to the point where they have lost what Voegelin called the “consciousness of the disease”.
The proof is in the nature of this conversation where learned men do not, yet, realize that the American soul, has been thoroughly corrupted, and that men must turn around (epistrophe) and seek the divine ground, which has been lost.
It’s becoming more obvious that that which is coming is going to be a lot more difficult and violent then I had ever expected.
March 19th, 2013 | 12:01 pm
It’s complicated because one must recognize and understand historicism or radical historicisim before negating it. I dont see Kennedy in Lawrence doing anything but recognizing the importance and prevalence thereof. Republican ideology often FAILS to even recognize and understand which is our real failing.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact