And now Miers has said it is a right that shouldn' be infringed and Bork says the 2nd Amendment doesn't impart an individual right and is an anachronism? Could it be he's over-educated himself? Thinks too damn much? Is out of touch with the common man?
Say it ain't so!
No, Bork is consistent with the original intent of the Constitution. He believes in a federal government with limited powers per the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. He believes that the selective incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment is bogus. That means the Federal government would be unable to regulate the State militias or enforce the Second Amendment against State laws.
The question is: Do you want Federalism or unlimited Federal power?
There is good reason for this preference. It preserves the powers of your local government which means that your local representation would remain meaningful. As things are now, the federal courts are dictating terms to local governments on hordes of issues that never reach the Supremes.
It's a trade-off with which Bork is at least consistent, unlike most Federal jurists.
That's not what all conservatives are saying. Most conservatives are saying that there were better qualified candidates available to Bush. And conservatives aren't saying we need a conservative jurist in the mold of Robert Bork, but rather we need a conservative jurist in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas.
> Could it be he's over-educated himself? Thinks too damn much? Is out of touch with the common man?
Reminds me my grandfather used to warn against the dangers of too much formal education. He called it "uberstudiert," which in German means "over learned". I guess I survived though... even with myself as a PhD, he still requested that I give the eulogy at his funeral... an honor that I have cherished more with each passing day.