Robert H. Bork: Civil Liberties After 9/11

Commentary ^ | July=August, 2003 | Robert H. Bork

[Henrietta]

Three!

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Obviously, you've got some kind of problem. We all hope you get help.

[Dutchgirl]

I haven't posted in a while...I have been hacked at least three times since May. I must be getting "unpopular"...

Thanks for posting dome intelligent, informed, reasoned articles...keep them coming.

[The.Creature.From.Boggy.Creek]

Yes, I'm beginning to wonder the same thing. I used to admire the heck out of this guy.
How he could hold such a totalitarian-friendly view and be a Constitution literalist is mind-boggling. He mentions the border invasion, but he doesn't have enough integrity, I guess, to attach it to the fact that we've got troops (deliberately?) scattered all over the world, while the Constitution provides for the "common defense"--surely the border of our own country is more strategically important in establishing a common defense of this country than a thousand other lands all over the globe?
Unless of course our purported leaders are not actually trying to defend this country, then it makes a lot of sense.
After this I can only assume Bork must be "one of them." Them being the neo-cons.

[Michael.SF.]

Here's one conservative who is damned glad he was kept off the Supreme Court."

Well, there's at least two of us, now.

But Bork was in fact kept off for the wrong reasons and look at the results. The Left has now learned that they can win by demonizing anyone who does not meet their criteria and pass their litmus test.

The Borking of Bork was the begining and now filibusters are held because the Dems have been encouraged by the lack of anger over the ideological bigotry that the public has come to seemingly accept.

[Michael.SF.]

Bork is an elitist

The percentage of Lawyers who reach the level of being a Supreme Court nominee is probably comparible to the number of Little Leager's who make it to the pros.

In other words, a pretty elite group of people.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I don't think Borking Bork was the beginning. The Republicans just haven't found the spine to stop this crap. Until they do, it'll continue, whether Bork writes from the editorial pages or elsewhere.

[Argh]

bump

[ChadGore]

Re: worse than Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

It's obvious you haven't read a single word Mr. Bork has writen.

[Wonder Warthog]

"It's obvious you haven't read a single word Mr. Bork has writen."

I was referring to the potentialities of the Patriot Act, not what Bork had written. NO justification (terrorism or otherwise) can be sufficient for setting up a PERMANENT surveillance structure and infringement of Constitutional protections like the Patriot Act. We didn't need it in World War II, nor the Cold War, and we don't need it now. Al Queada is nowhere NEAR the threat to the US that the Soviet Union was.

Now, that said, I have no problem with applying the strictures of the Patriot Act to NON CITIZENS visiting the US--but US Citizens MUST retain their (our) full Constitutional protections. I also have no problem with a TEMPORARY "Patriot Act" applying to US citizens, but with renewal after a five year period contingent on a two-thirds vote of the Congress.

Just picture this---the powers of the "Patriot Act" in the hands of President Hillary R. Clinton.