Liti-Gator Wrote:
Dec 21, 2012 1:56 PM
Actually, as usual, you idiot liberals have it backwards. The Supreme court has adopted bork's view that the central role of anti-trust law is to protect consumer welfare. As far as your idiot monachy commnet, Bork was for the opposite: The democratic process making the decisions when the constitution is silent, like on abortion, which supposed to be the way our system works. The liberal/subversive/treasonous "judges" are the one trying to have the court becoming the oligarchy, with unelected judges, with no basis in the const., striking down democratically-enacted laws, simply because they don't like them. He didn't deride mainstream America, but believed in their wisdom to self-govern. Bork derided the aforesaid elites in the judiciary.