Posted on 10/10/2005 4:52:05 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
Thanks. Just watched it. These hearings are gonna be something. I hope anyway.
Glad to see you got it working for ya
Though it didn't seem so at the time, the Democrats and a few liberal GOP allies did the Lord's work when they rejected Robert Bork. I will grant that he is an interesting and learned man, but I am glad he is not a Supreme Court justice. He is an antigunner with a twisted, anti-citizen view of the Second Amendment. Sometimes bad people accomplish good things for the wrong reasons, so here's to the Dems for borking Bork.
Bookmark
Not soon enough.
I'd love to watch it, but have no idea how.
It's pretty much unanimous among intellectually honest conservatives that she should withdraw or be rejected. All the other side has is ad hominem attacks against anybody who dares to criticize the nomination.
Did you click on the link?
Once you get to the rapidshare.de page, look at the bottom center of the page.
You will see a white button that says "FREE" on it. Click on that.
Then, it will take you to another page. Look at the bottom of that page and you will see "Download Ticket" and it will count down from 25 seconds.
Once that time has elapsed, the name of the file will appear-- "BorkOnCNN.rm". You click on the link and save it to your hard drive-- then you can view it.
Let me know if that helps
Bork brings up a very good point here. What message does this send to conservative judges? Do we really want to say to them that if they stand up for conservative judicial philosophy they won't be considered for the Supreme Court? In a way this forms a litmus test in and of itself. That being that if you rule on any controversial cases, you are disqualified from supreme court service.
Hola guys - thanks Stellar for the pings. Had to actually get back to work today, makes freeping nonstop a bit tough :)
Great interview. Of course now the apologists will try to marginalize Bork, as we've already seen.
Bork states the case succinctly and left Wolf grasping at straws with the "aren't you going to wait until the hearing to judge her" argument. It goes back to a theme I've brought up several times which no apologist has yet answered: the supposed unimportance of the resume.
Used every day all over corporate America, in universities, and in government to analyze job applicants. Noone would suggest that companies chuck the resume thing, and begin using recommendations of friends in high places as the primary qualification for new hires. Resumes are a fact of life. And yes, we can "bork" this woman purely based on hers, just as corporate America does every day.
i know i keep repeating myself here, but the talking point of "waiting for the hearings" is the dumbest thing i've ever heard. she will likely invoke the ginsburg rule. whatever her answers are-- does not guarantee that she will not drift left within 5-10 years.
Read his 'Tempting of America'... there's a lot more to Bork than one quote like that...
His most recent book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0817946020/102-1329312-7666515?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance
A few other quotes:
"[Law is] vulnerable to the winds of intellectual or moral fashion, which it then validates as the commands of our most basic concept."
- Robert H. Bork quotes
"[A] society deadened by a smothering network of laws while finding release in moral chaos is not likely to be either happy or stable."
by Robert Bork
Lindsey Graham has this wierd facial tick thing going on. I watched him during Bush's swearing in ceremony while the CSPAN cameras zeroed in and he wasn't aware. It was wierd. I am thinking Graham should run with Mary Landrieu..lol. I can see the bumber stickers now.."Tick and Tock...let's turn back the clock". (grin)
"If we reject her on ideological grounds what right will we have to criticize the 'rats when they reject other judges on ideological grounds?"
That is a confused statement. Constituionalism is by definition non-ideological (it is contract law, which must apply to liberals and conservatives).
Besides, are you saying we SHOULD pick on ideological terms rather than adhere to constitutionalism?
Well Robert Bork (right 99% of the time) was defeated in the Seante for Tony Kennedy (right maybe 50% of the time). Doesn't sound that good to me.
did you see this?
Don't be sure, for Lindsey is known to look goggle-eyed at Hillary. He might just defect entirely for 2008. He is one loose cannon, whereas old Strom was firm and forceful, maybe a little deceitful, but firm and forceful.
Graham: 2002, 2008, 20014, it will go on and on. SC always keeps incumbent senators. But he can't beat Strom's record.
Just watched it. Thanks!
PING
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.