We Should Listen To The Libertarian Viewpoint On Kagan Represented By Greenwald and Turley

Glenn Greenwald and Jonathan Turley are excellent legal commentators with very consistent records as civil libertarians. They are not liberals, but they are consistent with their point of view unlike many conservatives. This is why Glenn Greenwald supported the Court's decision in Citizens United. This is why Jonathan Turley is siding with gun rights advocates in McDonald v. Chicago. They are both very consistent in their views on limiting the power of the government, as well as their support for individual rights. Of course, this is not always a classic liberal judicial viewpoint, which may favor gun control and campaign finance limits.

This is why I think we should review the critiques offered by libertarians like Greenwald and Turley. Unlike conservatives, libertarians are consistent in their defense of individual rights. Conservatives would happily revoke a person's citizenship based on the mere accusation of terrorism. As Arizona demonstrates, conservatives would happily allow the government to question people on their immigration status based on their ethnic appearance despite their professed belief in small government while libertarians would oppose such overreaching by the government. There is substantial agreement between libertarians and liberals with respect to such expansions of governmental power.

Yet, we must also be careful not confuse a libertarian viewpoint with a liberal one. There is a lot of overlap. A libertarian and a liberal will both likely oppose laws restricting the use of marijuana as a government intrusion upon choice. Likewise, a libertarian and a liberal may also oppose laws restricting gay marriage, as well as the recent rise in anti-immigration laws.

But, on issues of social justice, libertarians and liberals may part company. Liberals may wish for extensive regulation on economic manners. Heck, even campaign finance represents a form of social justice, as a means of putting individuals on an equal footing with large corporations.

I am a liberal. I am sympathetic to many libertarian views, and I respect the views of Glenn Greenwald and Jon Turley. However, I do part company with them on issues such a campaign finance and gun control. I do think there is a strong case to be made for governmental regulation, particularly on economic issues and social justice.

My view is that while a libertarian idealogy is very coherent, it is often not practical. I think the Citizens United decision is simplistic in its assumption that corporations are actually speaking on behalf of individual shareholders. The decision conflates the interests of the corporation with those of the shareholders. If you own an index fund in your 401(k), you likely own a piece of Exxon, but I doubt that you would say that Exxon speaks on your behalf. The pragmatic, not theoretical reality is that corporations have an identity that is distinct and separate from that of its shareholders.

So, contrary to the views of libertarians, I do think that campaign finance laws should pass constitutional muster. Indeed, like Justice Sotomayor, I would question constitutionalizing corporate personhood.

This is why I think Elena Kagan would be my kind of Supreme Court justice. A justice who is principled, yet practical. This may offend libertarians, but I think her ideals, background and history support the idea that she would be a fine liberal justice. Just not a libertarian one.

Except of health care, of course.

Progressives shouldn't kid themselves -- libertarians have a very different view of social justice.

It's been a pattern (except in health care) to "listen" to the liberal perspective, and then reject or substantially and often unilaterally "compromise" it away.

The posters below are correct, though- Grenwald's not a libertarian, although as Tom pointed out, he and Turley may share some views with the American Civil Liberties Union that aren't traditionally seen as liberal or progressive.

He has rejected that label many times and posted this on his twitter page, "Libertarian is a pretty weird label to apply to someone who favors single-payer health care and massive increases in social spending." He also favors public financing for elections.

Greenwald is NOT a libertarian.

Either label catapults the propaganda of their detractors. Truth doesn't matter any more.

Glenn described himself as neither liberal, nor a conservative. Glenn's views may have evolved, but I don't recall him suddenly embracing liberalism or waking up to the realization that he is liberal.

Edit: Also, Glenn has very correctly ripped on conservatives for their hypocritcal stance on "small government" while cheerleading George Bush.

Since "libertarian" has been successfully co-opted by people who just don't like paying their taxes the word has become almost a slur.

The word is so loaded now that when I identify myself as a civil-libertarian I often add, as needed explanation, "ACLU libertarian, not Ron Paul libertarian"

I think that Republicans and conservatives are really just unabashedly pro-corporate and racist. They say they are for a small government, but they cheer on the erosion of civil liberties in the interest of national security. Likewise, conservatives are more than happy to tear down the Establishment Clause, as well allow for the government to elimate the rights of women on reproductive issues. Likewise, conservatives preach state rights, but will eagerly push for federal preemption in favor of corporations.

I agree that the term "libertarian" has been hijacked by many on the right who use it to try to establish their independence and cover up their right wing partisanship.

As a side point, I identify being pro-civil liberties with being progressive, if anything. (But clearly, different people have different definitions.)

As in American Civil Liberties Union.

I don't believe that inconsistent.

because it is printed