Andrew Napolitano Should be Nominated to the Supreme Court

Andrew Napolitano met with President-elect Trump for over an hour on the qualities the next Supreme Court Justice should maintain. We shouldn’t look past the man sitting in the room with Mr.Trump during said meeting. Mr.Napolitano is a former New Jersey superior court judge and current FoxNews senior judicial analyst. He possesses all the credentials needed to fill the vacant seat.

The Judge, as some call him, has an understanding of natural rights that is second to none. He believes our rights predate the existence of government, there for no government can legitimately take them away. An understanding of the Constitution that Jefferson and Madison would be proud of, generally interpreting from a standpoint of original intent coupled with natural law. A skeptic when it comes to foreign intervention he maintains we should only go to war when congress authorizes and declares war. An outspoken opponent of the war on drugs. Mr.Napolitano understands that drug use is a victimless crime that can only potentially hurt the user. He has called attention to the ridiculous prison population in America for victimless crimes and thinks it is a cruel and unusual direction for a supposed free country to take. In 2015 he debated former head of the NSA Michael Hayden and called the practice of collecting Americans data without a search warrant a violation of the fourth amendment.

An author of nine books you will not find a more articulate well-written potential appointee out there. If appointed to the Supreme Court his written decisions would be something all liberty loving Americans could look forward to and learn from. An advocate for personal and economic freedom he regards taxation as immoral theft. He stated, “The only truly moral commercial transaction is one that is voluntary.” Andrew Napolitano is the clear cut choice for Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and lovers of liberty alike.


Author: Timothy Eyer

Timothy is a graduate of Fullsail University with an Associate’s degree in Applied Science and a 2017 graduate of the Virtual Mises University in Economics. He is an amateur Civil War historian and a lifelong champion of Liberty. Mr. Eyer is Chairman of the Livingston County Libertarian Party and a member of the Libertarian Party of New York. An avid activist, he fights for 2nd Amendment rights, jury nullification, and ending the war on drugs. He is an advocate of free markets, Austrian Economics, and school choice. Timothy believes a free and voluntary society is best for a prosperous civilized nation. He is also the co-host of a weekly Libertarian minded podcast.

3 thoughts

  1. I would love to see Judge Napolitano on the Supreme Court — but I doubt he would take it. The ethics of a Justice of the Supreme Court would curtail his right to speak freely in public; something he clearly prizes. But if he took it, he would be outstanding!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Judge Napolitano would be a fantastic pic. I was surprised when this story first broke. As a libertarian, Trump was not my pic for president. However, with the election over, and all that behind us, interesting developments like this meeting with Judge Napolitano gives me some hope that Trump will appoint some Libertarian leaning candidates. I am pleasantly shocked and encouraged that our new president elect would seek counsel on such an important matter of picking a Supreme Court justice with Judge Napolitano. If Trump shocks us by picking Napolitano for the Supreme Court, picking a Libertarian of the caliber of a Judge Napolitano, would indeed be a solid victory for libertarians and the liberty movement in the United States.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. There was a time when Americans believed in freedom.

    The US is dying from a million cuts. Part of the reason the USA is a nanny police state now is that whenever there is a problem, the kneejerk reaction in the US is to call for a new law.

    Nanny state laws are not the best solution, however. Nanny state laws lead to more laws, higher fines, and tougher sentences. Thirty years ago, DWI laws were enacted that led to DWI checkpoints and lower DWI levels. Seatbelt laws led to backseat seatbelt laws, childseat laws, and pet seatbelt laws. Car liability insurance laws led to health insurance laws and gun liability laws. Smoking laws that banned smoking in buildings led to laws against smoking in parks and then bans against smoking in entire cities. Sex offender registration laws led to sex offender restriction laws and violent offender registration laws.

    Nanny state laws don’t make us safer, either. Nanny state laws lead people to be careless since they don’t need to have personal responsibility anymore. People don’t need to be careful crossing the street now because drunk-driving has been outlawed and driving while using a cellphone is illegal. People don’t investigate companies or carry out due diligence because businesses must have business licenses now.

    The main point of nanny state laws is not safety. The main purposes of more laws are control and revenue generation for the state.

    Another reason laws are enacted is because corporations give donations to lawmakers to stifle competition or increase sales.

    Many laws are contradictory, too. Some laws say watering lawns is required, while other laws say watering lawns is illegal.

    Many nanny state laws that aim to solve a problem can be fixed by using existing laws. If assault is already illegal, why do we need a new law that outlaws hitting umpires?

    Nanny state laws are not even necessary. If everything was legal would you steal, murder, and use crack cocaine? Aren’t there other ways to solve problems besides calling the police? Couldn’t people educate or talk to people who bother them? Couldn’t people be sued for annoying behavior? Couldn’t people just move away? Even if assault was legal, wouldn’t attackers risk being killed or injured, too? Do people have consciences? Having no laws doesn’t mean actions have no consequences.

    If there is no victim, there is no crime.

    We don’t need thousands of laws when we only need 10.

    Freedom is not just a one way street. You can only have freedom for yourself if you allow others to have it.

    Should swimming pools be banned because they are dangerous? Hammers? Bottles? Rocks? Energy drinks? Pillows?

    Control freaks might get angry when a neighbor owns three indoor cats, but what did the neighbor take from them? Why should this be illegal? Is outlawing cats something a free country should do? Doesn’t banning everything sound like the opposite of freedom?

    Instead of getting mad at people who like freedom, why don’t people realize that freedom is a two way street?

    If you allow others to paint their house purple then you can, too.

    If you allow others to own a gun then you can, too.

    If you allow others to swear then you can, too.

    If you allow others to gamble then you can, too.

    Who wants to live in a prison?

    Think. Question everything.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s