Some libertarian centralists and conservatives, and, no doubt, Randians, are in a snit about Maria–I mean Sonia–Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Why, it’s almost as if having central, federal control is not a good idea!
Follow-up: There is a common belief that the federal government’s “courts” and “judges” are real courts and real judges. A real judge’s job is to do justice, and to find and develop real law (as I discuss in Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society). Not to merely “apply” artificial law–legislated diktats from criminal gang posing as the source of genuine law. These “judges” merely “construe” statutes which need have nothing to do with justice. They are no more judges than an actor on a stage.
Federal “judges” are nothing but professional bureaucrats–agents of the state. They are fake judges. This fact is missed by libertarians who buy into the state’s propaganda–the idea that these are real courts of justice and real judges–and thus want “intellectual giants” on the Court. It is incredible that libertarians think it’s even possible to have a real libertarian appointed to the Court and doing justice. A federal judge can no more be expected to do justice than is an IRS agent, Army general, or Congresscritter. For this reason I’d much rather just get a random layman from the phone book to sit on the Supreme Court. This would help erode the Court’s mystique and aura of “justice” and High Seriousness–and probably result in better decisions! Who’s more likely to rule based on justice and “higher law“–professional state climbers and power-seekers with lots of propagandized education under their belts, or regular people?9:27 am on May 29, 2009 Email Stephan Kinsella