Here’s a thread worth reading.
As a more moderate libertarian, I have no particular problem with the death penalty, but do find in many ways the Supreme Court’s ruling to be consistent with how many want to view teenagers in this society.
Mike makes some interesting assumptions about social conservatives’ views of teens. I think he’s wrong. About ten years ago, National Review, for instance, was on a kick that more teenagers should be married and starting families for a whole host of social reasons.
I cannot let Mike downplay the significance of the court’s extra-Constitutional ruling in Roper v. Simmons. In this arrogant statement, Mike give the Supremes a pass:
“As a more moderate libertarian, I have no particular problem with the death penalty, but do find in many ways the Supreme Court’s ruling to be consistent with how many want to view teenagers in this society.”
Whether or not the ruling is “consistent with how many want to view teenagers in this society” is irrelevant to my point and to most other conservatives’ points about the ruling. The Supreme Court is morally, historically, and legally barred from imposing its view or society’s view on the people. Period.
By inventing a new concept of momentum, the court renders the Constitution meaningless. Using this precedent, I can argue that laws prohibiting carrying concealed weapons unconstitutional. The momentum in the states is undeniably heading in that direction.
The problem with giving the Supreme Court a pass when it shreds the Constitution in a way you favor is that, someday, it will shred that same contract in a way you detest.
Finally, how can a libertarian support the concept that 9 old ladies and men can dictate to the citizens of, say, Missouri the rules under which they live. By supporting Roper v. Simmons logic, libertarians are ensuring that no state will ever become a haven for libertarians. If only they would think for a moment they would realize that the path a libertarian utopia right in the US lies with restoration of federalism so that some state may follow the Randian path without imposing its values on its neighbors.
That was the founders’ dream. But the Supreme Court, like the allegorical tiger in that fantastic song in Les Miserables, came at night to tear apart the dream. What’s left is something nasty, damp, far flung, and uniform, like the output of a sneeze.