Blay Tarnoff

Running For: Judicial Committee

About Blay Tarnoff

Active Libertarian Party member since 1990

Current Chair of the Libertarian National Judicial Committee
Current County Chair of the Nassau County Libertarian Party
Past Chair of the Libertarian Party of New York

Computer systems analyst, most recently as technical support for quantitative financial analysts on Wall Street and neural network system developer and presenter at nVidia GPU Technology Conferences
J.D. Pace University
A.B. Mathematics, Brown University

Are you a dues paying, or life, member of the Libertarian Party?

Sustaining Member

What has your activism in the Libertarian Party been like?

Past Chair of LPNY and a decade as Secretary

Past and current member of the Judicial Committee

Choose any case that the Judicial Committee has heard in the history of the Libertarian Party, most of which can be found here: LPedia.

What is your opinion of the conclusions of the Judicial Committee in that case?

I wrote an opinion in every case this term. I believe the cases in which I wrote the majority opinion were correctly decided and the rest were not. I would be very pleased to debate anything I wrote.

Is there anything else that would make you a good member of the Judicial Committee?

In most of the cases that come before the Judicial Committee, the Bylaws require the Judicial Committee to determine whether a decision of the National Committee has violated the Bylaws. That requires a purely rule-based analysis and any personal feelings regarding the parties or the issues MUST be set aside. Beside a modicum of intelligence and a deep concern for the welfare of the Libertarian Party, the task also requires an ability to absorb all the rules that are pertinent to the question being considered and apply them to the issues that arise, dispassionately and without prejudice.

Some members of the Judicial Committee this past term have vociferously objected to attorneys serving on the Judicial Committee. I agree that attorneys do sometimes have a tendency to over-complicate matters, but at least they have the ability to apply rules to the facts of the case in a logical manner and some experience in setting aside personal prejudice. Perhaps having three attorneys and three non-attorneys would be optimal. But, as one who has never practiced, I may be the perfect person for the job: the basic law school training to logically and consistently apply rules to facts, without years of being subject to the Alice in Wonderland complexity and absurdity that comprises the legal system.

I believe that fairly and consistently applied rules provide the best bulwark for the sincere and honest to prevail against the disingenuous, and the best opportunity for the truth to emerge from the political tumult. I have tried my best to uphold that standard this past term, and pledge to continue to adjudicate in that vein.