Black was a New Dealer to the core, and also was a devout civil libertarian. Regardless of what modern "Libertarians" believe, Black embodied no contradiction in this.
I'd find this post more convincing if it contained the word "internment".
Yes, that is the spot on his record. Tell me, Mark, what does it have to do, though, with sacrosanct "economic liberty"?
It's no accident that the worst of Black's record is lauded by the very libertarian/conservatarian types who think his New Deal-ing in the Senate was so "reprehensible".
Who lauds that besides Michelle Malkin?
At any rate, I think the decisions on internment and the New Deal are related in that Black rarely if ever let the Constitution stand in the way of FDR's desires. This is a nice situation when it goes your way, but when it goes the other way you're screwed.
And before you ask, no, I'm not going to defend the Lochner decisions - I don't think the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from enacting minimum wage laws. I'd even blame that court for pulling a pendulum too far in one direction so that when it swung to the opposite extreme we got FDR's court-packing scheme and decisions like Wickard v. Filburn.
Yeah, Malkin's the only one with balls enough to laud it openly. The others like Reynolds and Volokh have more subtle excuses. Besides, how many conservatarians do you know who have dismissed Malkin's arguments CATEGORICALLY? And further besides, you've already agreed that many conservatarians are advocating a Malkin-esque, "anything goes" answer to the current crisis. Wanna deny that now and say that Libs are at the forefront of anti-PATRIOT ACT measures? And are they the same bunch of nitwits who cheered the cops beating hippies in NYC?
Black owed his career to FDR. No excuse, but a reason. There is no excuse for the internment, but then again it's not like Black was the only one who voted to uphold it -- Conservative Justices like Harlan, IIRC, who certainly held to the precious economic liberty argument, also voted for it. Wasn't Jackson (weirdly) the only dissent? I don't remember.
For another thing Black at the time was terribly young and had not yet found his voice. At that time about the only thing he'd done that hinted at what was to come were the Jehovah's Witness cases.
Do you really think hugo Black would have interred Vietnamese-Americans in the 60s had it come up then when he was at full power and full independence?
And just how is it Black's fault that FDR came up with the court packing scheme? And what part of that scheme that went into practice wasn't all bad for the Economic Liberty Uber Alles Side, was it? After all, Frankfurter was an FDR appointee, and god knows he was a status quo man all the way even to the point (sic, yes) that he was agreeable to counterrevolutionary arguments.
1. Besides, how many conservatarians do you know who have dismissed Malkin's arguments CATEGORICALLY?
Well, I take back my Malkin comment - certainly the Instahack and his buddies are with Malkin. But to answer your question, it depends on what you mean by "conservatarian". Does that mean "conservative or libertarian" or "self-proclaimed libertarian who apologizes for Bush on every last issue"?
Anyway, The "fucktards" at Reason have.
2. And further besides, you've already agreed that many conservatarians are advocating a Malkin-esque, "anything goes" answer to the current crisis. Wanna deny that now and say that Libs are at the forefront of anti-PATRIOT ACT measures? And are they the same bunch of nitwits who cheered the cops beating hippies in NYC?
I don't apologize for those people. In 2004 America, you're, sad to say, either on one side or the other, and for as long as this silly tribalism lasts, I'm with the Democrats.
3. And just how is it Black's fault that FDR came up with the court packing scheme?
I wrote no such thing. I blamed court-packing on public opinion that may have been caused in part by the extremism of the Lochner-era court.
Anyway, my larger point was that Black's opinion in Korematsu was consistent with a general pattern that was consistently anti-libertarian, in the civil AND economic arenas.
No, it wasn't consistent. It was an aberration. Or do you have a list of quasi-fascist Korematsus you wish to lay at Black's feet?
There is *no* correlation between hostility to the great fraud of "economic freedom" and hostility to civil liberties. Certainly conservatives are classically hostile to the latter and ebracing of the former. The typical Hugo Black was the reverse. I get the feeling you wish to paint it that since Black was against Gilded Age stupidity, it's ipso facto "proof" that he's hostile to freedom qua freedom. It's simply not true.
Yes, "self-proclaimed Libertarian apologist for Bush" is exactly what I'm thinking. I wager that the population of Libs is quite full of such people.
I really wish you guys would kick some people out, so to speak. the fact is that Neiporent, Instahack and Volokh USE Libertarianism as a shield, as to avoid that "insane dissenbling reactionary" label they so richly deserve, and which puts them in the corner with the likes of charles johnson, where they belong.
Still, they know the arguments and the pedantry of Libertarianism, all of which they use. So it's up to YOU genuine Libs to determine that Ashcroft apologists are a great deal worse than ppl who dont believe in precious precious "economic freedom".
I really wish you guys would kick some people out, so to speak.
I don't know how I'm supposed to do that. I'm not chairman of a think tank here, I'm just a guy with a day job who talks trash on the Internet. When I'm not provoked by you, almost all that trash talk is directed at Bush and Friends.
The LP has already kicked out, well, everyone who isn't blue.
Most of Reason's "fucktards" have written in one place or another that they'd like to see Bush lose. (Virginia Postrel fits the conservatarian profile to a tee, but she's been out since before I started reading it, and oh how some people pine for her days.)
Can you "kick out" Zell Miller?
Hey, Zell Miller's a relic. We haven't claimed his kind in years. Sure, Clintoniods probably did, but those are the kind of people like Kevin Drum who think that Max Boot makes sense. In my mind, not only is Zell a false Democrat, but so is Drum.
Hilarious link; it's nice that your tent is big enough for Smurfs.
Well, Niall Ferguson and sully have written the same thing, but it's not like that makes them any less reactionary.
The way I see it you have the same duty to slag conservatarians and those "Libs" that like to see hippies beaten as I have to slag Kevin Drum and had to slag Clintonoids who were defending the Welfare Reform crap, Waco, and other monstrosities.
Commenting by HaloScan
