Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Their Will Be Done [Robert Bork on O'Connor's replacement, constitutional law, and moral chaos]
American Outlook Today ^ | July 5, 2005 | Robert H. Bork

Posted on 07/06/2005 8:00:51 AM PDT by rhema

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last
To: Iris7; AntiGuv

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


41 posted on 07/06/2005 3:55:31 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: CatQuilt
I just remembered something else he said at the same time.

Bork said Ruth Bader had been a student of his and how much he liked her.

42 posted on 07/06/2005 3:59:23 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: rhema

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.


43 posted on 07/06/2005 4:12:13 PM PDT by Mat_Helm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iris7

Yup, and then you die with that much less of a life worth living.


44 posted on 07/06/2005 5:15:59 PM PDT by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rhema

bttt


45 posted on 07/06/2005 6:11:04 PM PDT by lunarbicep ("Only in America do we have drive up ATM's with braille on them")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

If Bork is authoritarian than so were the founding fathers, and the Constitution is an authoritarian document.


46 posted on 07/06/2005 7:22:49 PM PDT by TAdams8591 (Off-the-cuff-comments are NOT CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: yarddog
The important thing is that Bork doesn't support Ginsberg now after her decisions and conduct on the court. He mentioned her this evening, as one of the activist judges on the Supreme Court.

Everyone can be wrong from time to time about someone. Clearly Bork was wrong about Ginsberg.

47 posted on 07/06/2005 7:26:47 PM PDT by TAdams8591 (Off-the-cuff-comments are NOT CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rhema
In moral matters, each man is a separate sovereignty. In its insistence on radical personal autonomy, the Court assaults what remains of our stock of common moral belief

I have a hunch Bork's essay will not be well received by our resident and lurking libertarians.

48 posted on 07/06/2005 7:28:14 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Thanks for posting that Burke quote. It's odd we don't get more posters quoting Burke on a conservative website.


49 posted on 07/06/2005 7:32:27 PM PDT by NeoCaveman (we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning-Thomas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Eva
I was thinking precisely the opposite today. Bush has an ego and he doesn't like being told what to do. I wish he would save his admonishments for the left, and remember his real friends are those who elected him!

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.

50 posted on 07/06/2005 7:35:53 PM PDT by TAdams8591 (Off-the-cuff-comments are NOT CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591

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.


51 posted on 07/06/2005 7:42:48 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591

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.


52 posted on 07/06/2005 7:45:59 PM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
"but there are causes supported by modern libertarians that I doubt would be countenanced by them."

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.

53 posted on 07/06/2005 7:50:14 PM PDT by TAdams8591 (Off-the-cuff-comments are NOT CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591
Nonsense. Bork is an authoritarian because he explicitly regards the Ninth Amendment as a meaningless nullity. The founding fathers had this to say:

Amendment IX of the Constitution of the United States
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 don’t know what it means and if someone would tell me what it means I would be happy to use it, but I just don’t 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 what’s 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.

54 posted on 07/06/2005 8:03:13 PM PDT by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Eva
From what I heard Rush said the opposite yesterday after the president made his comments.

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.

55 posted on 07/06/2005 8:07:43 PM PDT by TAdams8591 (Off-the-cuff-comments are NOT CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
I wish Bush and the Republicans would smack the rats down the way they smack conservatives down.

Liberal/conservative, republican/democrat I suspect have less of a figure-ground relationship at high levels of government these days.

56 posted on 07/06/2005 8:12:36 PM PDT by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident

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.


57 posted on 07/06/2005 8:22:45 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591
BTW, James Madison had this to say by contrast:

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.

58 posted on 07/06/2005 8:24:09 PM PDT by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
There is an obvious disparity in the two remarks, the first written and the second verbal. Clearly, by his written statement Bork does have an understanding of the meaning of the ninth amendment. Why his verbal statement would maintain the opposite is anyone's guess.

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.

59 posted on 07/06/2005 8:25:13 PM PDT by TAdams8591 (Off-the-cuff-comments are NOT CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell

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.


60 posted on 07/06/2005 8:26:28 PM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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