While all the Democrats will certainly make unacceptable picks for the Supreme Court, neither Paul or Giuliani can be trusted on this.
Cna you give me an example of conflicting interpretations of the Constitution between “the crackpot” and say, Clarence Thomas?
Did you read Bork’s book? I would not put him in the same class as Thomas. Not even close. And he’s NOT a “true Constitutionalist” by any means. Then of course I happen to believe that the Constitution means something and that our black robed masters have taken to ignoring parts they don’t like. Bork knows NOTHING about the 9th and 10th Amendments, which is what makes him WORTHLESS as a judge. Frankly, I’m glad he didn’t make it. Ginzberg is worse for sure, but in a different direction.
Here’s just a few “forinstances” about what I am saying...
1) In 1999, Bork wrote an essay where he condemned jury nullification as a “pernicious practice”. See what a REAL conservative like Chief Justice John Jay, in Georgia v. Brailsford, (1794) had to say about nullification - “you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.”
2) Bork has argued that the Second Amendment merely guarantees a right to participate in a government militia. That’s not “original intent” and you damn well know it.
3) In 2005 Bork claimed that “[l]iberty in America can be enhanced by reinstating, legislatively, restraints upon the direction of our culture and morality”. You support government censorship of our media? I sure as hell don’t.
And so on. Bork would have made a terrible supreme and Ronnie missed the boat when he nominated him.