Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What if Robert Bork was nominated to the High Court?

Posted on 06/05/2017 9:59:13 AM PDT by Mafe

With Trump asking the Supreme Court to uphold his travel ban, I know for certain that if the case is heard before Anthony Kennedy retires, the decision will be in his hands. Needless to say I am very doubtful that we I can count on Kennedy to uphold it.

That made me think - how would the 21st century be different had Robert Bork been nominated to the Supreme Court instead of Kennedy? Its obvious that SSM never would have been legalized via the court, and Roe vs. Wade would've stood a good chance of being overturned. What other decisions do you think would have been different?


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; History; Miscellaneous; Society
KEYWORDS: bork; court; homosexualagenda; liberalagenda; robert; robertbork; supreme; vanity; whatif
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: 1Old Pro

Trump may very easily have three picks


21 posted on 06/05/2017 10:47:50 AM PDT by nikos1121 (Rudy Guiuliani for Head of FBI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121
Trump may very easily have three picks

Let's hope so and that they are great and that they are confirmed.

22 posted on 06/05/2017 11:08:42 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mafe

Bork was nominated but not confirmed. That is the legacy of the idiot Scottish Law professor Arlen Specter.


23 posted on 06/05/2017 11:20:34 AM PDT by Phlap (REDNECK@LIBARTS.EDU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mafe
had Robert Bork been nominated to the Supreme Court instead of Kennedy?

Bork was nominated but not confirmed. Then, Kennedy was nominated and confirmed.

24 posted on 06/05/2017 12:02:56 PM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress

What if Napoleon had four or five A-10s at Waterloo?


25 posted on 06/05/2017 12:09:34 PM PDT by henkster (Orwell, Rand and Huxley would not be proud of our society, but they'd have no trouble recognizing it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121

“Trump may very easily have three picks”

Let’s hope the next two replace Ginsburg and Kennedy or Breyer.


26 posted on 06/05/2017 12:49:24 PM PDT by fwdude (Democrats have not been this angry since Republicans freed the slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mafe

Bork WAS nominated for the high court. He was not CONFIRMED.


27 posted on 06/05/2017 12:55:48 PM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mafe

Heller might have been decided the wrong way.


28 posted on 06/05/2017 1:23:58 PM PDT by Ken H (Best election ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Enough with the semantics. Back to the question - how would things be different if he was confirmed?


29 posted on 06/05/2017 1:27:05 PM PDT by Mafe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mafe
Bork died in 2012. Therefore he would have been on the court for Heller and he would have voted against Heller, making it 5-4 the other direction. Having done so, McDonald never would have made it on the docket.

Bork on the Second Amendment:

One of the most conservative jurists in the United States died last week. His thoughts on the Second Amendment are instructive.

“I’m not an expert on the Second Amendment,” Judge Robert Bork said in 1989, “but its intent was to guarantee the right of states to form militia, not for individuals to bear arms.” In 1991, Bork noted the weak support the gun lobby has in the Second Amendment.

“The National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms,” Bork said. “But I think it really is people’s right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks that it protects their right to have Teflon-coated bullets. But that’s not the original understanding.”

In a 1997 book, Bork took further exception to efforts to expand the narrow words of the Second Amendment. “The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government,” Bork wrote. “Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.”


30 posted on 06/05/2017 1:40:21 PM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mafe

Just because the Supreme Court rules on a subject, doesn’t make it right. The Constitution is clear on this power of the Executive.


31 posted on 06/05/2017 2:18:28 PM PDT by DeWalt (Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson