Supreme Court doctrines aren't about left vs. right in the conventional sense. The justices are very solid about the principles they claim to stick to (standards of judicial review, what constitutes limitations on commerce clause, etc...) and civil liberties aren't a left vs. right matter.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchant... for example: Scalia wrote a very strong pro-free speech majority opinion, extending speech to cover violent video games. Beyer (generally thought of as liberal) dissented using logic he would use in any other decisions, Thomas again used the "en-loco parentis" argument he often makes in decisions involving children (I disagree with him, but he sees it as consistent with support of free speech). See also Thomas' dissent in Raich vs. Gonzales.
In 9th circuit, judge Alex Kozinski is probably the best example of a strongly civil liberties minded conservative/libertarian justice. I would like to see Kozinski in SCOTUS, but I'm pretty sure he'll receive The Mother of All Borkings if ever nominated.
Yes, you are correct. I wrote the comment too hastily. To expand a bit on this, the heuristic Thomas follows is "did the government simply do what a reasonable parent would do under the same circumstances?". Thomas' argument in Brown was that adults would still be able to purchase some of the violent video games, as would children with explicit adult permission -- but absent parental involvement a government would act similarly to an average parent (prohibit purchase of certain video games).
He used similar logic in case of school censorship (if a parent would reasonable want to prohibit a student from wearing a shirt with an illicit message) or search and seizure (if a parent would reasonable want to search a students' person in one case, so may a school do so).
Personally, I disagree with this logic: the government is not the parent and in all of the above cases the parent could still exercise authority without the statute at hand (a parent can prohibit a child from playing video games, wearing a certain t-shirt, etc...).
Furthermore it's often insufficient nuanced: the standard is too vague (two children of same age may differ wildly maturity wise, some children may become "emancipated minors", etc...).
I personally believe there should be a "gateway" for youth to have greater civil rights (the right to vote, emancipate themselves, work under adult labour laws, serve in the military, etc...) -- but I haven't spent much time thinking how such a gateway would work.
> I would like to see Kozinski in SCOTUS, but I'm pretty sure he'll receive The Mother of All Borkings if ever nominated.
I'm not a citizen of the United States, but as a recent admirer of judge Kozinski (because of his libertarian views and because he was born in the city I now live in, Bucharest, Romania) I'm curious why people in power wouldn't want him joining the Supreme Court.
I am a US citizen and in a similar position: I admire his libertarian views and relate to his origins (like him, I'm a Eastern European secular-Jewish immigrant).
The reason is simple: United States may be libertarian on average, but the major centers of political power (coastal California, New York, and Texas) are far from libertarian. Indeed, one think tank rated New Zealand as more free than United States in both personal and economic realms: e.g., de-criminalized drugs and gun control laws that are less harsh than some US states.
It's unfortunate, but I don't think we can see anyone more libertarian-leaning than Thomas (who has some libertarian leanings, but is anti-abortion, and can be weak on fourth amendment) in the Supreme Court any time soon (not even accomplished "economics of law" scholars like Epstein or Posner).
parenthetically, it was only recently that I realized the origin of the term 'borked' as relating to the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchant... for example: Scalia wrote a very strong pro-free speech majority opinion, extending speech to cover violent video games. Beyer (generally thought of as liberal) dissented using logic he would use in any other decisions, Thomas again used the "en-loco parentis" argument he often makes in decisions involving children (I disagree with him, but he sees it as consistent with support of free speech). See also Thomas' dissent in Raich vs. Gonzales.
In 9th circuit, judge Alex Kozinski is probably the best example of a strongly civil liberties minded conservative/libertarian justice. I would like to see Kozinski in SCOTUS, but I'm pretty sure he'll receive The Mother of All Borkings if ever nominated.