Their Will Be Done--How the Supreme Court sows moral anarchy BY ROBERT H. BORK

www.opinionjournal.com ^ | Sunday, July 10, 2005 | ROBERT H. BORK

[cpforlife.org]

What do the nomination of a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor, constitutional law, and moral chaos have to do with one another? A good deal more than you may think.

In Federalist No. 2, John Jay wrote of America that "providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs." Such a people enjoy the same moral assumptions, the cement that forms a society rather than a cluster of groups. Though Jay's conditions have long been obsolete, until recently Americans did possess a large body of common moral assumptions rooted in our original Anglo-Protestant culture, and expressed in law. Now, however, a variety of disintegrating influences are undermining that unanimity, not least among them is the capture of constitutional law by an extreme liberationist philosophy. America is becoming a cacophony of voices proclaiming different, or no, truths.

Alexis de Tocqueville observed that "if each undertook himself to form all his opinions and to pursue the truth in isolation down paths cleared by him alone, it is not probable that a great number of men would ever unite in any common belief. . . . Without common ideas there is no common action, and without common action men still exist, but a social body does not."

Contrast Tocqueville with Justices Harry Blackmun and Anthony Kennedy. Justice 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."

[E Rocc]

John Jay also advocated denying citizenship to Roman Catholics in New York state. His views on religion and government are hardly those of the Constitution.

-Eric

[cpforlife.org]

LifeSiteNews.com
Tuesday July 12, 2005
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05071211.html

The Supreme Court and Moral Anarchy

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 12, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – “What does the nomination of a replacement for Sandra Day O’Connor, constitutional law, and moral chaos have to do with one another? A good deal more than you think.”

So writes Robert Bork, a former judge on the U.S Court of Appeals, in what is arguably one of the clearest and most timely expositions of the fundamental abuses which plague the institution of the Supreme Court. “Their Will Be Done”, printed in the Wall Street Journal on July 10, calls into question the entire legal, social, and moral philosophy under which the Supreme Court has been operating, pointing out the grave abuses of power by that court, and highlighting the immediate necessity of a return to faithfulness to the Constitution, lest the United States be completely fragmented by the Court’s destructive moral anarchy.

“The struggle over the Supreme Court is not just about law,” prophesies Bork, “it is about the future of our culture.”

According to Bork the very foundation upon which the United States was built, including and especially its “body of common moral assumptions” is being destroyed by the “liberationist spirit of our times.” This ‘liberationist spirit’ is that which believes that “in moral matters, each man is a separate sovereignty,” which, Bork argues calling for support from Alexis de Tocqueville, ultimately destroys the very basis for a society. And it is the Supreme Court, in its present form, as little more than the left’s “political weapon”, which is the most powerful and most outspoken advocate of that destructive spirit.

“When [the Supreme Court] rules in the name of the Constitution, whether it rules truly or not, the court is the most powerful branch of government in domestic policy,” writes Bork. “The combination of absolute power, disdain for the historic Constitution and philosophical incompetence is lethal.”

Not content to simply make sweeping statements, Bork backs up his assertions with a thorough list of the Court’s abuses of power and their poor moral philosophizing, mentioning, amongst other things, the court’s unconstitutional support of child pornography, gay ‘rights’, abortion ‘rights’ and its whittling away at religious freedom in the name of ‘tolerance’.

“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,” says Bork.

At a time when conservatives across the country are crossing their fingers that their president will stay true to his professed desire to restore a culture of life, Bork’s article further highlights just how vital and necessary Bush’s resolve is. “To restore the court’s integrity will require a minimum of three appointments of men and women who have so firm an understanding of the judicial function that they will not drift left once on the bench…That will be difficult, but the stakes are the legitimate scope of self-government and an end to judicially imposed moral disorder.”

In filling at least one, and possibly two Supreme Court vacancies, president Bush will have the opportunity to prove himself to his supporter base as being fully committed to the cause of life. If he should fail to restore the court’s integrity, however, he will be responsible for plunging his nation further into disunity, and pushing it further into the mire of moral relativism.

[cpforlife.org]

PING

[cotton1706]

He was a brilliant legal mind, one of the founders and Chief Justice. His views are quite valid.

[cpforlife.org]

More proof that nobody is perfect.

[cpforlife.org]

Pro-Life / Pro-Constitution PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

“The "Original Jurisdiction" clause in the Constitution (Article III, Section 2, Clause 2) offers a way to quickly obliterate Roe v. Wade and teach the Supreme Court a lesson it badly needs to learn: to never again invent non-existent rights in The Constitution.”

-- Dr. Jack Wheeler Geopolitical strategist, who developed & inspired the Reagan Doctrine.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

If anyone has not had a "firm understanding of the judicial function," it'd be Bork.

[cpforlife.org]

"If anyone has not had a "firm understanding of the judicial function," it'd be Bork."

Please expand on that comment.

[mlc9852]

Why do you say that?

[drjimmy]

Alexis de Tocqueville observed that "if each undertook himself to form all his opinions and to pursue the truth in isolation down paths cleared by him alone, it is not probable that a great number of men would ever unite in any common belief. . . . Without common ideas there is no common action, and without common action men still exist, but a social body does not."

So I guess Bork approves of the Supreme Court citing foreign sources in interpreting the Constitution. And a French one at that. Who woulda thunk?

[KC Burke]

Burke pointed out in Reflections On.. that one feature of the old monarchy and its court was they occupied and virtually employed the intellectual class, the philosophers and dilettantes. The rationalists, the dreamers and the schemers were fully occupied and thus kept out of the detail of governmental administration.

Thus, those who saw themselves as little gods were kept busy from inventing schemes to surmount religion, reinventing society to suit their imagination, and foisting their "vision of the anointed" on the rest of society.

Jay's quote on a singular culture is and was a gross exageration even in its time. The Hudson Valley, Manhattan Island, Pennsylvania and elsewhere was predomintly dutch (as there was no Germany) and the dutch then, like every ethnic culture since, bought into the Recieved Rights of Englishmen ethos and thus helped insure the future of our nation.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

RKBA

[U.H. Conservative]

Toqueville is not a foreign source of law. He was a historian, of foreign origin, studying contemporary America at that time.

[jtullins]

the asserted " 'moral fact' that a person belongs to himself and not others nor to society as a whole."

What a crazy idea! Saying everybody is free and doesn't belong to society, but rather needs to make their own choices and work for their living. All I could hear as I read this line was people from Atlas Shrugged saying, "Everybody belongs to everybody else."

What is happening to the belief in individual freedom nowadays? I've come to expect the rampant attacks on it from the left, but nowadays more and more conservatives seem to be professing ideas like this that go against the spirit of individual freedom that founded this country. After reading this I'm quite glad Bork wasn't put on the court. The more people there are calling freedom the path to anarchy, the more power the state will give itself to make sure we don't have to worry about either one.

[timtoews5292004]

de Tocqueville's quote has nothing to do with our supreme court, nor does Bork's use of the quoted passage infer that he supports the idea of foreign sources being valid in interpreting our own Constitution. de Tocqueville's quote is in reference to governing in general.

[aardvark1]

What you appear to fail to realize is that the freedom envisioned by the founders is akin to that espoused in the Bible, that is, freedom under law. If you read this column as a whole, you also see that Bork is arguing that we all can't have our "own truth" and still have any cohesiveness. Truth is transcendent and universal.

[KC Burke]

Eric, While the bigotry toward Catholic franchise must be recognized, Jay's part in the authorship of the Federalist Papers must be given weight as well.

Perhaps, no other documents came any closer to explain the thinking behind the writing and usefulness of the Constitution at the time than these Papers published and read avidly. The people of each state, those that voted on ratification, were influenced by them as by few other sources. While his role is not mentioned as much as Madison or Hamilton in their authorship, he wrote his share.

[drjimmy]

de Tocqueville's quote has nothing to do with our supreme court, nor does Bork's use of the quoted passage infer that he supports the idea of foreign sources being valid in interpreting our own Constitution. de Tocqueville's quote is in reference to governing in general.

Bork directly contrasts de Tocqueville's views with those of Supreme Court justices Blackmun and Kennedy, saying the "vaporings" of those two justices don't have "the remotest basis in the actual Constitution." Of course it was in reference to the Constitution.

[jtullins]

I did read the whole article and accept the point that each person cannot have their own truth. There is in fact one Truth and that is God's Truth and all men should follow it.

However, the Government should not be the enforcer of morality. There is the Law of God and the law of man. Forcing a man to follow the Laws laid down in the Bible will not save him, salvation can only come from an internal acceptance of God and a personal decision to follow his will. In short, whether or not there is a human law against adultery should be completely meaningless for a Christian; God has already ruled and it is to Him we must look first of all.

Going back to my original point, it is the idea that everybody belongs to society or to other people that Bork touches on that I have a problem with. If everybody belongs to themselves, then only laws that deal with individuals doing harm to other individuals have any right to exist. If, on the other hand, everybody belongs to everyone else, then paternalism becomes an issue; laws are made for "the greater good" of the people, because the government knows best. America was founded on the idea that it is individuals, not societies or any other groupings, that hold inalienable rights and these rights should only be infringed upon by the government to prevent people from infringing on one another.