Damon Root Discusses Libertarians vs. Conservatives on the Supreme Court and More!

Should the Supreme Court practice judicial restraint?

In his cover story from the July issue of Reason, Associate Editor Damon W. Root discussed how the debate over judicial activism is dividing the conservative legal movement. Root sat down with Reason.tv Editor in Chief Nick Gillespie to discuss libertarian and conservative legal theories, judicial activism, Elena Kagan's nomination, and more.

Approximately 10 minutes. Shot by Meredith Bragg, Josh Swain and Dan Hayes. Edited by Hayes.
Got to http://reason.tv for downloadable iPod, HD, and audio versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• reason.t
• reason.com
• reason.org
• reason magazine
• reason foundation
• damon root
• libertarian
• conservative
• supreme court
• judicial activism
• constitutional law

[d0861]

@adamitshelanu Incorrect. Libertarians understand the importance of a central constitution and a government that abides by it to protect the people's liberty.

[JuliaB1955]

@d0861 Precisely.

[Onieracraft]

@tridentmovies

Objective Moral framework? Pseudo-Philosophers are a dime a dozen on Youtube as always.

We have done a great deal to boost people's confidence in what they know within this society, but very little to develop them intellectually.

[x2f01mick]

@MikeTMerciless What in the hell is a "moral framework", don't bother answering because you'll just raise more questions. Study some philosophy then see what "petitio principii" means. A government without a moral framework is like a tiger without wings.

[hawanja]

@tridentmovies Look, it's not my fault you can't condense the entire American political spectrum down to a 256 character text message. This shit is complicated. And speaking of guns and politics, tell me, in this last election cycle, which side were the ones bringing guns to their rallies? Who were throwing bricks through windows, threatening violence, using racial hatred? Was it the evil tree-hugging commie liberals? Maybe you people should get your ducks in order before you talk shit.

[tridentmovies]

@hawanja

Wow. You've convinced me. Please give me more excellent arguments based on ad hominems or otherwise entirely meaningless bullshit, so i can attain your wisdom and become a better person.

The reason "dumbshit" like myself always lose is because dumbshits like myself don't rely on the power of the gun, the physical dominance of a majority or an army to impose my will.

People like getting what they want. They can use the fascism of the state to get it. Gee, i wonder why i always lose.

[tridentmovies]

@MikeTMerciless

What you don't realize is that the kind of liberty i propose HAS a moral framework. Just not a subjective one, like ones that are based on blind beliefs in some invisible flying Spaghetti monster. Your God has not allowed you to understand why taxation is robbery, and therefor your morality is a clear indication that your morality is still warped, while mine is objective and consistent. You are typical, in that you believe you need divine commands to know morality.

[tridentmovies]

@MikeTMerciless

Paying taxas is FORCE, you dolt. There is no difference between the morality of a common thief taking my wallet once, or a government that i don't support taking money from my wallet until the very day i die. Tax collectors are worse than common thieves, because they pretend to be moral and won't ever stop robbing you under threat of violence or imprisonment.

Thanks for proving you still don't understand the concept of true morality or true liberty.

[tridentmovies]

@MikeTMerciless

You've just proven you don't have a clue about liberty. Your goddamn religious morals you've derived from your non-existent ghost in the sky are meaningless to anyone who prefers sticking to reality and facts.

There are NO legitimate laws that are capable of being aimed at non-agressive people. No law should be based on "morality" but on whether agression is committed. Religious morality is subjective. A punch in the nose is not.

[tridentmovies]

@MikeTMerciless

I only have to look at the kind of people the Tea Party supports (e.g. Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck)

The fact that i'm thinking for myself, rather than follow some flock the way conformists always do in the end, even if it's a new type of flock, clearly exhibits the nonsensical nature of your argument. I mean, i am now supposed to believe the Tea Party is monolithic? No, then how the hell do you know what i know about them? And if it is monolithic, then who's "thinking for himself"?

[tridentmovies]

@MikeTMerciless

I look at it through the prism of fact. All through history when religion has dominated society, not once has there ever been actual liberty. But let me guess, the leaders were "misrepresenting" an otherwise flawless doctrine, correct?

[hawanja]

@brokenbrainz1 Do you really, really, really think my one little youtube comment is "calling for the death of people with political views different than mine?" Are you fucking serious?

I am not a commie. Commies are dipshits. They should all have their legs chopped off at the knees then be thrown in the grand canyon.

I am not a Fascist. Fascists are slimebags. They should all be skinned alive and covered in lemon juice, then fed to man-eating vampire squids

Get a fucking sense of humor. Damn