Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Very concise essay. You can see why they did not want Bork on the Court, and why he should have been there.
1 posted on 07/05/2005 4:58:52 AM PDT by docbnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: docbnj

God should punish those who kept this magnificent mind off our highest court. What a sad loss for our country when morons fell for Gregory Peck's diatribe against him during the nomination hearings! For those of you too young to remember this debacle, Peck was considered an expert on Constitutional law because he played the lawyer in the movie, "To Kill a Mockingbird." Yes, that's how PATHETIC our Senate was. We'll see in the coming nomination battle if it's improved any, or whether Michael Moore will be called as an "expert witness" by our leftist enemies.


2 posted on 07/05/2005 5:06:26 AM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: docbnj
So, instead of the giant legal mind of a Justice Bork, we got the muddled confusions of a Justice Souter. What a tradeoff!

That's the danger we face again today if the GOP waves the white flag and retreats in surrender before the bullying Liberals and whining RINOS.

3 posted on 07/05/2005 5:39:04 AM PDT by Gritty ("Once justices leave original Constitutional principles, as most have, they lack any guidance-R Bork)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: docbnj
EXCERPT:


The Court's philosophy reflects, or rather embodies and advances, the liberationist spirit of our times. In moral matters, each man is a separate sovereignty. In its insistence on radical personal autonomy, the Court assaults what remains of our stock of common moral beliefs. That is all the more insidious because the public and the media take these spurious constitutional rulings as not merely legal conclusions but moral teachings supposedly incarnate in our most sacred civic document....

Consider just a few of the Court's accomplishments: The justices have weakened the authority of other institutions, public and private, such as schools, businesses, and churches; assisted in sapping the vitality of religion through a transparently false interpretation of the establishment clause; denigrated marriage and family; destroyed taboos about vile language in public; protected as free speech the basest pornography, including computer-simulated child pornography; weakened political parties and permitted prior restraints on political speech, violating the core of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech; created a right to abortion virtually on demand, invalidating the laws of all 50 states; whittled down capital punishment, on the path, apparently, to abolishing it entirely; mounted a campaign to normalize homosexuality, culminating soon, it seems obvious, in a right to homosexual marriage; permitted racial and gender discrimination at the expense of white males; and made the criminal justice system needlessly slow and complex, tipping the balance in favor of criminals. Justice O'Connor, a warm, down-to-earth, and very likeable person, joined many, though not all, of these bold attempts to remake America. Whatever one may think of these outcomes as matters of policy, not one is authorized by the Constitution and some are directly contrary to it. All of them, however, are consistent with the left-liberal liberationist impulse that advances moral anarchy.

Democratic senators' filibusters of the president's previous judicial nominees demonstrate liberals' determination to retain the court as their political weapon....

5 posted on 07/05/2005 5:48:33 AM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: docbnj
From further down in the article, here's an interesting list:

The justices have weakened the authority of other institutions, public and private, such as schools, businesses, and churches; assisted in sapping the vitality of religion through a transparently false interpretation of the establishment clause; denigrated marriage and family; destroyed taboos about vile language in public; protected as free speech the basest pornography, including computer-simulated child pornography; weakened political parties and permitted prior restraints on political speech, violating the core of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech; created a right to abortion virtually on demand, invalidating the laws of all 50 states; whittled down capital punishment, on the path, apparently, to abolishing it entirely; mounted a campaign to normalize homosexuality, culminating soon, it seems obvious, in a right to homosexual marriage; permitted racial and gender discrimination at the expense of white males; and made the criminal justice system needlessly slow and complex, tipping the balance in favor of criminals.

I notice that there is no reference to Kelo. Has anyone seen or read Mr. Bork speaking out against Kelo?

6 posted on 07/05/2005 5:50:46 AM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: docbnj
One of Ronald Reagan's biggest mistakes was to nominate Sandra Day O'Connor with his FIRST supreme court pick. Reagan should have nominated Bork with his first pick. I believe Bork would have most likely made it through confirmation during Reagan's "honeymoon" period. Instead, we got the second rater O'Conner and her increasingly doltish decisions.

Good on you, Mr. Reagan, but you blew that decision.

10 posted on 07/05/2005 7:41:14 AM PDT by Semi Civil Servant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: docbnj
Contrast Tocqueville with Justices Harry Blackmun and Anthony Kennedy. Blackmun wanted to create a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy because of the asserted "'moral fact' that a person belongs to himself and not others nor to society as a whole." Justice Kennedy, writing for six justices, did invent that right, declaring that "At the heart of [constitutional] liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Neither of these vaporings has the remotest basis in the actual Constitution and neither has any definable meaning other than that a common morality may not be sustained by law if a majority of justices prefer that each individual follow his own desires.

The Constitution is not a document for individuals and their issues - it is a document that cements the American people as a whole; a judicial document that should be etched in granite, IMHO. It is not a plaything for special interests yet this court with a few exceptions, has used our Constitution for individual interpretations - to suit their agenda and that of special interests - in other words, the SCOTUS can be likened to militant Mullahs, it is political - not judicial. The unpopular Socialist left uses the courts to further their otherwise unobtainable socialist issues…another reason President Bush is serving a second term, he was put there by Americans who abhor Socialism and recognize and can differentiate what is a socialist and what is a liberal….Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Leahy, Waxman, Waters, S.J. Lee, Boxer, etc, along with some really stupid ones like Dick Durbin and Byrd……some are openly socialistic others just follow the crowd. The Supreme Court must be brought back to the original intents which was to serve and preserve the Republic.

Keep Frist's feet in the fire!!!!!

11 posted on 07/05/2005 10:26:20 AM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson