Posted on 07/06/2005 8:00:51 AM PDT by rhema
Freedom? Here's a good description:
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites--in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;--in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;--in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
-- Edmund Burke
Bork said Ruth Bader had been a student of his and how much he liked her.
This is a very good article and exactly the state of the Federal bench and the impact on our society. The SCOTUS is destroying the family one ruling at a time and the nation and society are suffering greatly. God help our children.
Yup, and then you die with that much less of a life worth living.
bttt
If Bork is authoritarian than so were the founding fathers, and the Constitution is an authoritarian document.
Everyone can be wrong from time to time about someone. Clearly Bork was wrong about Ginsberg.
I have a hunch Bork's essay will not be well received by our resident and lurking libertarians.
Thanks for posting that Burke quote. It's odd we don't get more posters quoting Burke on a conservative website.
The democrats are preparing for war over this next Justice appointment and the the Republicans are preparing for a civil, dignified process. The Republicans had better GET REAL, or our nation may pay a price from which we may not recover.
I think that the founding fathers were libertarian within the context of their day, but would not have been within the modern context. In other words, their fundamental outlook was libertarian, but there are causes supported by modern libertarians that I doubt would be countenanced by them.
You just stated another reason not to be so vocal about the choice of the judicial nominees. It just won't do any good and might do more harm. We made our choice in November and now we have to trust that we made a good decision. We don't want to give the left any cover for their irate rantings and disgraceful behavior.
After I posted this, I heard Rush say a similar thing.
Agreed. Freedom does NOT mean every person can do whatever immoral thing they want to do. That is not an idea the founders would support.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Mr. Bork has this to say:
"There is almost no history that would indicate what the ninth amendment was intended to accomplish. But nothing about it suggests that it is a warrant for judges to create constitutional rights not mentioned in the Constitution. Ely, along with a great many other people, thinks that it is precisely such a warrant. Nothing could be clearer, however, than that, whatever the purpose the ninth amendment was intended to serve, the creation of a mandate to invent constitutional rights was not one of them. The language of the amendment itself contradicts that notion.... If the Founders envisioned such a role for the courts, they were remarkably adroit in avoiding saying so ... What, then, can the ninth amendment be taken to mean? One suggestion ... is that the people retained certain rights because they were guaranteed by the various state contitutions, statutes and common law ... This meaning is not only grammatically correct, it also fits the placement of the ninth amendment just before the tenth and after the eight substantive guarantees of rights ... The ninth amendment appears to serve a parallel function by guaranteeing that the rights of the people specified already in the state constitutions were not cast in doubt by the fact that only a limited set of rights was guaranteed by the federal charter."
Robert Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law, p183.
"Well, I dont know what it means and if someone would tell me what it means I would be happy to use it, but I just dont know what it means. It's as though you had a copy of the Constitution and there was an inkblot on it and you couldn't read what was under the inkblot. I don't think judges should make up whats under the inkblot."
Robert Bork, speaking on the Ninth Amendment before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 1987.
Like I said, so far as I'm concerned, we can do without another insolent authoritarian on the Supreme Court, in particular one with such self-admittedly dim reading comprehension.
Whether Bush likes it or not, conservatives, who discuss everything, should NOT remain quiet now. I agree with Bork. Furthermore, the left also heard his remarks to conservatives which bothers me.
The discussion about Gonzalez has never been personal or shrill and has always been civil and about his politics. Most reasonable conservatives do not see him as a reliable conservative. The president should consider the opinions of the majority of those who put him twice into power and should not be attempting to silence them. The Democrats will behave as the democrats no matter what.
Apparently, many on the left also don't like Gonzalez and spoke out today. Their attacks on Gonzalez will become far more personal. I have a sneaking suspicion, the president won't be asking them to be quiet or telling them that he doesn't like it when his friends are attacked. Such is politics. But Bush should keep his opinions about conservatives and their public discussions to himself. Many like myself aren't listening. And we don't take our marching orders from the Republican party.
Liberal/conservative, republican/democrat I suspect have less of a figure-ground relationship at high levels of government these days.
I should attempt to read a whole book by him. I wonder if there are any at my local library. I seriously doubt it.
Maybe I could find essays or something. I don't know much about him, but I read that many of the founder of this country were very influenced by him and his writings.
It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
James Madison, addressing the First Congress of the United States, 1789.
The 'inkblot' means precisely what it obviously means: that the Federal government has no powers beyond those explicitly and narrowly enumerated within Article One, Section Eight of the U.S. Constitution - and that all further rights are retained by the people.
I agree with Bork that the ninth amendment does NOT mean that there are limitless rights which go beyond what the Constitution specifies. And I do not believe according to the Constitution, for instance, that one has a right to abortion, sodomy, homosexual marriage, or the use of illicit drugs for instance (and the list goes on and on), like so many libertarians do, and that does not mean that myself or anyone else who believes thusly, is authoritarian, including Judge Bork. Sorry.
I will repeat, if Judge Bork is authoritarian, so are the founding fathers.
Unfortunately I believe you're right. That's why new blood is needed. Professional politicians and whores have much in common, except with a prostitute she knows and the john knows what she is.
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.