Anyone else here a fan of the CATO Institute?

[decodeddiesel]

Just wondering. I know there are some hardcore Libertarians on this site and I was wondering if anyone else uses the CATO Institute as their "political compass" as I tend to. I try like heck to model my political beliefs around their core principles, Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace.

I just read this (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11150) article on Obama's first year which I enjoyed. See this (http://www.cato.org/pubarchives/index.php?type=opeds) list for some light reading. :p

[ForTehNguyen]

<3 Cato

[thopkins22]

I'm a huge fan of CATO. I've met David Boaz and Patrick Michaels, they're just as intelligent in person as one would assume.

[SteyrAUG]

See sig.

[HES]

Yep love the CATO, also a huge fan of Reason magazine.

[Jerm]

Yep love the CATO, also a huge fan of Reason magazine.

Beat me to it.:cool:

[Icculus]

Very interesting. Thanks for pointing out these resources.

[kaiservontexas]

Yep, I used them on a few papers during my university years.

[KingsideRook]

Likewise - big fan of CATO, I check their homepage near daily.

[Irish]

Count me in as being a CATO supporter. :cool:

[decodeddiesel]

Yep, I used them on a few papers during my university years.

I used CATO quite a bit in my political science class last year. I am finally finishing off my elective/fluff classes this semester with a philosophy class. Sadly the professor is an old hippy/hardline progressive liberal (read socialist). He's already got us reading Marx and Sartre. I'm gonna have to drop as many CATO references in as I can this semester. :D

[decodeddiesel]

I'm a huge fan of CATO.


See sig.


Count me in as being a CATO supporter. :cool:

Figured ;)

[ForTehNguyen]

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/

[kwelz]

Ye, count me in too. I may even have to steal that sig line.

[Atg336]

Pro CATO.
I have a pocket edition of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution printed by CATO Inst. which I carry with me (often stronger in an argument than a gun!).

[Irish]

Speaking of Cato... just posted this on the McDonald VS Chicago thread.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/26/nra-cares-more-about-nra-than-gun-rights-liberty-professional-courtesy/


Posted by Ilya Shapiro

Yesterday the Supreme Court granted the NRA’s motion for divided argument in McDonald v. Chicago. What this means is that Alan Gura’s 30 minutes of argument time on behalf of Chicagoland gun owners just became 20, with 10 going to former Solicitor General Paul Clement, whom the NRA hired at the last minute to pursue this motion and argument. (Full disclosure: Alan Gura is a friend of mine, and of Cato.)

The NRA’s motion was premised on the idea that Alan had not fully presented the substantive due process argument for selective incorporation of the Second Amendment — presumably out of an outsized concern for the Privileges or Immunities Clause arguments about which I’ve previously blogged and written a law review article. This is a highly unusual argument and is a facial slap at Alan’s abilities as an advocate. Sadly, it’s also typical of how the NRA has behaved throughout this case and before that during the Heller litigation — sabotaging Alan at every turn and showing again and again that, even in the face of winning arguments that fully support its legal positions, the NRA prefers to seek glory for itself rather than presenting the strongest case for its purported constituency of gun owners.

Alan rightfully opposed the NRA’s motion because the group’s participation at argument adds nothing substantive to the case. No one will ever know why the motion was granted, as the Court need not (and did not) provide any reasons. Nonetheless, it’s a safe bet that this is solely a testament to Clement’s talent and reputation (notably, the motion was not filed by any of the NRA’s other excellent attorneys, who briefed and argued their case in the lower courts and in a cert petition and brief before the Supreme Court).

I have great respect for Paul Clement, and have worked with him by filing amicus briefs in two cases he’s already argued this term, but I do take issue with his repeated suggestion that the motion’s purpose — and the reason behind its granting — was so that “all the avenues to incorporation, including the due process clause, are fully explored at the argument.” This kind of comment — again impugning Alan’s litigation strategy — is uncalled for, and renews concerns over the NRA’s conduct.

Throughout this case, Alan has consistently and forcefully advocated for the Second Amendment’s incorporation under the Due Process Clause. That didn’t change when his case was taken up by the Supreme Court. The thing is that the due process arguments are not all that complex, and simply do not merit the same care and attention in the briefs as arguments based on the Constitution’s actual text and history. A first-year law student who’s taken constitutional law – let alone a Supreme Court clerk – could write a due process incorporation argument in her sleep! In any event, the oral argument will be driven by the justices’ questions, not by any long soliloquies by counsel. Alan’s — and all attorneys’ — job is to be ready for anything.

If the NRA were concerned about the final outcome of the case, it would be unlikely to attack Alan’s strategy or question his preparation (an odd way to be “helpful” to one’s side). It is not a stretch to predict that this case will be favorably decided at least in part on due process grounds, however, so what we are seeing here is likely an attempt by the NRA to position itself as responsible for such a victory – and that Alan isn’t.

Ultimately, then, the NRA is engaging here in fundraising, not liberty-promotion or ethical lawyering.

[woodandsteel]

I am now. Although I have heard about them in passing, I have really never understood who they were.


See sig.

I would gladly vote for someone running for office that adhered to your sig line.