In response to:

Lessons From The Bork Debacle

Robert1824 Wrote: Dec 25, 2012 10:32 AM
All intelligent and fair-minded Americans should be profoundly grateful that the late, unlamented Robert Bork was not confirmed . He was opposed to rights for homosexuals, had no probvlem with desperately poor women dying at the hands of back-alley abortionists, and was even opposed to the legality of contraceptives for MARRIED couples . He was an evil ,nasty, and mean-spirited man . Good riddance !
Roy323 Wrote: Dec 26, 2012 12:43 AM
If U say "so", r1824. I will only comment that you are CONSISTENT! WRONG, but consistent!
True Conservative! Wrote: Dec 25, 2012 9:02 PM
You're so full of lying sh it, bobby, it's a pure wonder you don't explode!
Matthew492 Wrote: Dec 25, 2012 4:26 PM
"was even opposed to the legality of contraceptives for MARRIED couples."

Your post betrays your ignorance. Bork was not opposed to the legality of contraceptions. He was opposed to the Court's decision in Griswold v. Connecticutt, which substituted the court's personal opinion for a state law. The beauty of this country used to be that states could be laboratories, and people would be free to live in the state they want. Over the last 50 years, the court and federal government have forced the states to become more and more alike, so now it is getting very hard to try new laws and see if they work or not.
Kenneth L. Wrote: Dec 25, 2012 11:15 AM
Way to speak ill of the dead, Robert. You're a prince.

I've read your silly comments about Bork before. Apparently, you're fine with a world in which truth is impotent, lies carry the day. I just pray you never experience the shoe on the other foot, and some politically-based campaign of falsehoods and slander takes down your darlings supporting "gay rights," etc.

Here's the deal on Bork. He felt that the Constitution should be respected. In other words, he felt that unilateral action by courts, without basis in the law or the Constitution, was tyranny. And it is.

You can have what you want. Bork would simply recommend that you have the patience to get it done through an orderly process, to avoid tyranny and/or chaos.
It's always best, I find, not to talk too rapturously about Ye Olde Days: days which, on careful inspection, yield evidence of problems aplenty. I won't assert, therefore, that no public figure ever received in earlier times a public evisceration comparable to that inflicted on the late Robert Bork, presidential nominee in 1987 to a seat on the U. S. Supreme Court.

I will make just two claims: 1) The political-journalistic assault on Judge Bork was indecent, slanderous, and hysterical -- a disgrace to ethics and standards all across the board; and 2) it ought to have warned us...

Related Tags: Supreme Court Robert Bork