In response to:

Robert Bork, Verb

Serpentdove Wrote: Jan 03, 2013 5:17 AM

"he wound up making an idolatrous doctrine of Original Intent, insisting that the intent of the Founders is all when it comes to constitutional interpretation" I must disagree with this assertion. The real issue with respect to Constitutional interpretation separate from the original intent, not surprising in the post modern world, means that words DO NOT HAVE CONSQUENCES. The assertion carries he assumption that the amendment process is archaic and that the amendment process belongs with nine men rather tnan three quartes of the States.

Join the Debate!

All comments and users are subject to Townhall's new comments policy.

Serpentdove Wrote: Jan 03, 2013 5:21 AM

In other words, the authors intended that the process of changing the Constitution not be easy. But in the 20th and now the 21st century, we do not want to look at the long hard road. We live in a postmodern world of immediate gratification and hence make the amendment process null because if we can amend through judicial fiat, why not go for it. Bork tried to warn in the Tempting of America that such a transformation will destroy the republic.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Read Full Story

Robert Bork, Verb

Bork, v., trans., "To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way."

--Oxford English Dictionary in an entry dated March 1992.

. .

"We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. ... This little creep, where did he come from?"

--Florynce Kennedy, addressing a conference of the National Organization for Women in July 1991 on the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court of the United States.

. .

It may be...

Related Tags: Judges and Courts Supreme Court Media and Culture Founding Fathers Conservatism Robert Bork Ted Kennedy law