Judge Robert Bork Endorses Mitt Romney

Race42008.com ^ | December 15, 2007 | Jason Bonham

[Spiff]

Wow! He joins such notables as the founder of The Heritage Foundation, Paul Weyrich and the father of the pro-life movement in America and internationally, founding president of National Right to Life Committee and current president of the International Right to Life Federation Dr. John Willke. Also notable is the toughest sheriff in America, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio as well as a former executive director of the National Rifle Association as well as a member of its current board of directors. It is amazing to me that Mitt Romney has amassed the most notable conservative endorsements yet many conservatives can’t seem to get it that he is a conservative and worthy of their support. Wake up, people! It’s either Romney or Rudy and for me I’m supporting the conservative.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

Gun Grabber Bork Supports Gun Grabber Mitt
Bork has denounced what he calls the "NRA view" of the Second Amendment, something he describes as the "belief that the constitution guarantees a right to Teflon-coated bullets." Instead, he has argued that the Second Amendment merely guarantees a right to participate in a government militia.

source-Life Magazine, Vol 14, No. 13.

[gracesdad]

For one thing there’s a strong anti-Mormon sentiment going on. I don’t care, but some on FR and elsewhere obviously do. Some folks will not vote for somebody they don’t believe is a REAL Christian.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

see post 22

[JCEccles]

Yet the diehard Bush supporters hate Huckabee. Have they something against speaking skills?

They see in Huckabee another Jimmy Carter debacle in the making--a fiscal liberal and foreign policy naif who wants to extort and spend taxpayer monies to remake America in his own intolerant Southern Baptist image.

And they don't want to repeat that horrible, expensive mistake.

[GOP_Lady]

Terrific news!

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

right to keep and bear arms - see post 22

[napscoordinator]

So now you are bashing Bork??? Funny how in 1987 people were begging for this guy on the Supreme Court. Did you flip flop on your support of him now???

[napscoordinator]

Bork is anti-RKBA and his judicial record leans to the jack-boot.

I don’t know what this means.

[JCEccles]

Wow! He joins such notables as the founder of The Heritage Foundation, Paul Weyrich and the father of the pro-life movement in America and internationally, founding president of National Right to Life Committee and current president of the International Right to Life Federation Dr. John Willke. Also notable is the toughest sheriff in America, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio as well as a former executive director of the National Rifle Association as well as a member of its current board of directors. It is amazing to me that Mitt Romney has amassed the most notable conservative endorsements yet many conservatives can’t seem to get it that he is a conservative and worthy of their support. Wake up, people! It’s either Romney or Rudy and for me I’m supporting the conservative.

Bump.

[SpringheelJack]

Romney seems definitely to be becoming the establishment choice.

I think the last time an “insurgent” succeeded in taking the GOP’s nomination from the bigwig favorite was Goldwater.

[basil]

Thanks! Guess that was being posted while I was posting to you—LOL! At least now I know!

[Rudder]

It is amazing to me that Mitt Romney has amassed the most notable conservative endorsements yet many conservatives can’t seem to get it that he is a conservative...

Romney is an ideologically-free manager.

[RKV]

Bork is not a good man and is wrong quite often. He knows the words but not the music. Yes he got crucified because he was a supposed conservative. That's about all he has going for him. Let me give you a for instance from another thread long ago...

"Bork is an authoritarian because he explicitly regards the Ninth Amendment as a meaningless nullity. The founding fathers had this to say:

Amendment IX of the Constitution of the United States

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Mr. Bork has this to say:

"There is almost no history that would indicate what the ninth amendment was intended to accomplish. But nothing about it suggests that it is a warrant for judges to create constitutional rights not mentioned in the Constitution. Ely, along with a great many other people, thinks that it is precisely such a warrant. Nothing could be clearer, however, than that, whatever the purpose the ninth amendment was intended to serve, the creation of a mandate to invent constitutional rights was not one of them. The language of the amendment itself contradicts that notion.... If the Founders envisioned such a role for the courts, they were remarkably adroit in avoiding saying so ... What, then, can the ninth amendment be taken to mean? One suggestion ... is that the people retained certain rights because they were guaranteed by the various state constitutions, statutes and common law ... This meaning is not only grammatically correct, it also fits the placement of the ninth amendment just before the tenth and after the eight substantive guarantees of rights ... The ninth amendment appears to serve a parallel function by guaranteeing that the rights of the people specified already in the state constitutions were not cast in doubt by the fact that only a limited set of rights was guaranteed by the federal charter."

Robert Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law, p183.

"Well, I don’t know what it means and if someone would tell me what it means I would be happy to use it, but I just don’t know what it means. It's as though you had a copy of the Constitution and there was an inkblot on it and you couldn't read what was under the inkblot. I don't think judges should make up what’s under the inkblot."

Robert Bork, speaking on the Ninth Amendment before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 1987.

Like I said, so far as I'm concerned, we can do without another insolent authoritarian on the Supreme Court, in particular one with such self-admittedly dim reading comprehension. 54 posted on 07/06/2005 8:03:13 PM PDT by AntiGuv (™) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

To: TAdams8591 BTW, James Madison had this to say by contrast:

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

James Madison, addressing the First Congress of the United States, 1789.

The 'inkblot' means precisely what it obviously means: that the Federal government has no powers beyond those explicitly and narrowly enumerated within Article One, Section Eight of the U.S. Constitution - and that all further rights are retained by the people.

So, Bork fails the basic reading comprehension test of constitutional interpretation - and conservatives don't do that. His failures are not limited to 9th Amendment jurisprudence and thoughtful conservatives should realize that they dodged a bullet when his confirmation failed.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

“Bork is anti-RKBA and his judicial record leans to the jack-boot.”

Bork does not believe in an individual right to keep and bear arms.

He thinks the 2nd amendment is about the right to join a State militia!

Romney does not support the right to keep and bear arms - his time in Mass proves it.

It’s a red line for me, and many others.

[Jeff Head]

My first choice is Duncan Hunter, followed by Fred. I will be on that train through the Idaho primary up until the nomination.

However, if it clearly comes down to Mitt or Rudy, I will vote for and support Mitt. If it comes down to Mitt or any of the democrats, I will clearly vote for and support Mitt.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

More to convince me that Romney will win the nomination. I predict a Romney vs. Edwards race. Robot vs. what cbs is showing us in the video here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/13/politics/fromtheroad/entry3617348.shtml

Too many people vote for the image, and the image they like is of cherry-cheeked youth. I don’t believe Romney will win in this micro-intellectual climate of ours, if Edwards is his opponent.

For that matter, I don’t believe Romney, period.

Nevertheless, if even Bork approves of him, I will have to hold my nose and vote for him next November. That is unless Obama or Clinton wins the nomination to oppose him. If they do, I can safely stay home with an intact conscience, because Romney will demolish them.

[Yaelle]

Romney has moved to my 2nd choice. I am still going to go with Fred, though.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

“So now you are bashing Bork??? Funny how in 1987 people were begging for this guy on the Supreme Court. Did you flip flop on your support of him now???”

The NRA wasn’t and neither was I.

Damn right - I will bash and and all gun grabbers!

[dawn53]

Some folks will not vote for somebody they don’t believe is a REAL Christian.

I think that's what's going on too. Let's just say they would have had problems with some of the founding fathers belief systems too.