However, I'm convinced that Bork would have been one of the greatest justices of the 20th-and 21st-century, if only given the opportunity to serve.
I'm not saying that I don't completely agree that his stances on antitrust issues and the 2nd Amendment are confounding, but I don't think that necessarily raises questions about his devotion to original intent.
It tends to cloud your reasoning. I think those things are key to understanding why he would not have been a good choice.
Like I said it was the way he reasoned himself into them. Once you can convince yourself that because you can not imagine something it can not be so then you have opened the door to convincing yourself that other bits don't mean what they say either.
I can see him as a man more swayed by a clever argument rather then underlying truth.
But Bork is not the issue. It is over and done with and we will never know for sure one way or the other.
I am going to watch the hearings with as much of an open mind as I can muster. Mainly I am going to be looking at how she thinks. Does she understand the idea of fundamental founding truths that should not be tampered with? Or does she try to twist them to fit what she wants to think?
If it is the first then bravo. If it is the latter then thumbs down.