Libertarian Appointed to Arizona Supreme Court

Contumacious

Radical Freedom
Aug 16, 2009
19,744
2,473
280
Adjuntas, PR , USA
Clint Bolick Appointed to Arizona Supreme Court

ClintBolick.jpg


That's the ticket
 
"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.
 
"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.

We have seem quite enough of that coming from the 5 liberals on the US Supreme Court.
 
The Founding Fathers were libertarians and the court is where we need libertarians the most. This is a good thing.
 
"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.



HUH?


ANY CASE LAW WHICH RELIED ON EMANATIONS AND PENUMBRAS MUST BE REVERSED OR IGNORED,

LIBERTARIANS ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION (1787) SINCE THE SAME IS A LIBERTARIAN DOCUMENT.

ANY LEGAL PRECEDENT SUPPORTING THE WELFARE /WARFARE POLICE STATE MUST BE REVERSED.

.
 
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.
 
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.

Supreme Court Justices do not PUSH for anything.
 
he should be for equal rights for all and the decriminalization of marijuana then right?

If these cases are brought before the Supreme Court, he very well may vote for them. But he can not be an advocate for them.
 

Forum List

Back
Top