Libertarian Appointed to Arizona Supreme Court

[Preacher]

Congrats to him. He can't do any worse than the republicans and democrats can he!? I await to see how he votes etc.

 

[Norman]

Clint Bolick Appointed to Arizona Supreme Court

That's the ticket

I'm not 100% sure what the Libertarians are about, are they a mixture of Conservative-Liberal ideology, or something else?

Libertarians are about liberty. That would be about as far from the progressively regressive ideology as you could probably get.


Anyway, congratulations Arizona for not appointing some commie, I have to look up this guy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Bolick has authored several books, [such] as Death Grip: Loosening the Law’s Stranglehold Over Economic Liberty(2011)[.]”

Clint Bolick

Oh, brother.

From this it's reasonable to infer that Bolick is hostile to settled and accepted, necessary and proper Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

It is nonetheless incumbent upon him to follow that settled and accepted, necessary and proper Commerce Clause jurisprudence and set aside his wrongheaded, sophomoric, and extremist 'libertarian' dogma and follow precedent and the rule of law.

As a private citizen he's at liberty to indulge in his childish, reactionary, utopian 'libertarian' fantasies, as a judge in a court of law, however, he's bound to uphold Constitutional case law no matter how much he might disagree with it.

 

[Billy000]

Clint Bolick Appointed to Arizona Supreme Court

That's the ticket

Oh great a mook who hates government is appointed to a government position.

 

[Norman]

“Bolick has authored several books, [such] as Death Grip: Loosening the Law’s Stranglehold Over Economic Liberty(2011)[.]”

Clint Bolick

Oh, brother.

From this it's reasonable to infer that Bolick is hostile to settled and accepted, necessary and proper Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

It is nonetheless incumbent upon him to follow that settled and accepted, necessary and proper Commerce Clause jurisprudence and set aside his wrongheaded, sophomoric, and extremist 'libertarian' dogma and follow precedent and the rule of law.

As a private citizen he's at liberty to indulge in his childish, reactionary, utopian 'libertarian' fantasies, as a judge in a court of law, however, he's bound to uphold Constitutional case law no matter how much he might disagree with it.

Is this your way of saying "he can read"?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If he pushes for the legalization of marijuana it will indicate his modern libertarian views. Otherwise he is a conservative Goldwater Republican and honest people should refer to him as such.

Why would a judge "push" for legalization? He should be supporting what the law says, not his own personal views.

 

[Centinel]

I'm not 100% sure what the Libertarians are about, are they a mixture of Conservative-Liberal ideology, or something else?

Libertarians hold that it's unjustified to violate the person or property of one's fellow man. That's about it. Or, more simply: Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff.

 

[Centinel]

Who is still compelled by his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, to follow established legal precedent, settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence, and the rule of law – whether he agrees with that jurisprudence or not, his wrongheaded political dogma notwithstanding.

What in particular compels him to follow established precedent?

 

[Desperado]

Good, may there be many more

 

[Contumacious]

Clint Bolick Appointed to Arizona Supreme Court

That's the ticket

Oh great a mook who hates government is appointed to a government position.

Get together with cclaytonjones and submit a list of socialists you like.

.

 

[Contumacious]

“Bolick has authored several books, [such] as Death Grip: Loosening the Law’s Stranglehold Over Economic Liberty(2011)[.]”

Clint Bolick

Oh, brother.

From this it's reasonable to infer that Bolick is hostile to settled and accepted, necessary and proper Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

It is nonetheless incumbent upon him to follow that settled and accepted, necessary and proper Commerce Clause jurisprudence and set aside his wrongheaded, sophomoric, and extremist 'libertarian' dogma and follow precedent and the rule of law.

As a private citizen he's at liberty to indulge in his childish, reactionary, utopian 'libertarian' fantasies, as a judge in a court of law, however, he's bound to uphold Constitutional case law no matter how much he might disagree with it.

He will know what to do.

Ignore all fascist/ socialist precedents.


Then from the African American Spiritual & Gospel Song


Arizonans will proclaim Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.

 

[Billy000]

Clint Bolick Appointed to Arizona Supreme Court

That's the ticket

Oh great a mook who hates government is appointed to a government position.

Get together with cclaytonjones and submit a list of socialists you like.

.

Well I would take a lot over a nutty libertarian.

 

[Wildman]

That's the ticket

at least he is not a muslime.

 

[Wildman]

then he's engaging in judicial activism, attempting to legislate from the bench,

you mean like the current U.S. S.C. is doing?

 

[TooTall]

Clint Bolick Appointed to Arizona Supreme Court

That's the ticket

Oh great a mook who hates government is appointed to a government position.

Get together with cclaytonjones and submit a list of socialists you like.

.

Well I would take a lot over a nutty libertarian.

Based on you posts, we already knew that. Socialism is good, liberty is bad.

 

[Billy000]

Clint Bolick Appointed to Arizona Supreme Court

That's the ticket

Oh great a mook who hates government is appointed to a government position.

Get together with cclaytonjones and submit a list of socialists you like.

.

Well I would take a lot over a nutty libertarian.

Based on you posts, we already knew that. Socialism is good, liberty is bad.

Where exactly do you get this idea that socialism means no Liberty?

 

[Centinel]

Where exactly do you get this idea that socialism means no Liberty?

Can socialism be achieved without the initiation of violence?

 

[Contumacious]

Clint Bolick Appointed to Arizona Supreme Court

That's the ticket

Oh great a mook who hates government is appointed to a government position.

Get together with cclaytonjones and submit a list of socialists you like.

.

Well I would take a lot over a nutty libertarian.

I understand, you don't want your government benefits affected , you want to continue soaking the taxpayers.

 

[Contumacious]

Clint Bolick Appointed to Arizona Supreme Court

That's the ticket

Oh great a mook who hates government is appointed to a government position.

Get together with cclaytonjones and submit a list of socialists you like.

.

Well I would take a lot over a nutty libertarian.

Based on you posts, we already knew that. Socialism is good, liberty is bad.

Where exactly do you get this idea that socialism means no Liberty?

Go to Miami, and ask the Cubans who will leave the Island "paradise" in anything that floats.


.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

"Libertarian Appointed to Arizona Supreme Court"

Who is still compelled by his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, to follow established legal precedent, settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence, and the rule of law – whether he agrees with that jurisprudence or not, his wrongheaded political dogma notwithstanding.

And if he issues opinions in conflict with that established legal precedent, settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence, and the rule of law, then he's engaging in judicial activism, attempting to legislate from the bench, becoming nothing more than a tyrant in black robes.

Personally, I think the duality of federal and state courts is a good thing because what if one of them gets it wrong? It might be a really good thing to have something else to go to in those cases.

Here is quick lesson about the supreme court. The supreme court has an appellet jurisdiction to all lower FEDERAL COURTS. Those courts have to obey the supreme court precedents because any decision they make that counters the federal supreme court will simply get overturned. They are free to make independent decisions but doing such a thing will be pointless because those decisions will get overturned. It will turn any lower courts independence into a futile act which is why lower courts rarely go against precedent. It is just pointless to do so.

State courts are not a part of the federal court system so they are free to have any contradictory opinion they want in any case that is about the constitution of the state or federal government that comes before them since the plaintiffs can't appeal directly to the supreme court. I'm sure there are plenty of decisions about the constitution made by state courts that are put in place by the state employees that may be different than the opinions of the federal supreme court.