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

To: Exnihilo
Bork is not qualified to dictate morality to me. After reading this twisted rationalization for totalitarianism, I'm glad he didn't make it to the bench.
12 posted on 02/01/2002 10:19:42 AM PST by NC_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: NC_Libertarian
Bork is not qualified to dictate morality to me. After reading this twisted rationalization for totalitarianism, I'm glad he didn't make it to the bench.

He's not the boss of me!

Actually, in a civilized state, someone has to be the boss. It's up to the people to select a just leader.

15 posted on 02/01/2002 10:23:07 AM PST by jrherreid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: NC_Libertarian
Bork is not qualified to dictate morality to me. After reading this twisted rationalization for totalitarianism, I'm glad he didn't make it to the bench.

I agree. I used to think Bork was great, but I now tend to think he is dangerous. This paragraph sounds like something on the "drug warriors" here would write:

The externalities of depictions of violence and pornography are clear. To complaints about those products being on the market, libertarians respond with something like 'Just hit the remote control and change channels on your TV set.'

And this is wrong? Bork is essentially saying that NO ONE has a right to view what someone else deems "bad".

But, like the person who chooses not to run a smelter while others do, you, your family, and your neighbors will be affected by the people who do not change the channel, who do rent the pornographic videos, who do read alt.sex.stories.

This is just scare tacticts. "I will be affected by those who are affected by the effects of movies, magazines or TV shows I don't like". Yeh sure. You are as affected as you allow yourself. Again, he claims he has a right to have people view only what he wants. Scary stuff.

As film critic Michael Medved put it: ' To say that if you don't like the popular culture, then turn it off, is like saying if you don't like the smog, stop breathing. . . .

That's stupid. You can move to where there is no smog, AND you can turn off the tv.

There are Amish kids in Pennsylvania who know about Madonna.' And their parents can do nothing about it.

Oh, here goes "for the children". Their parents can do nothing about it? Where have we heard this before? I have heard parents claim that they can't stop their kids from going to cancun on sprin break. This is pathetic.

30 posted on 02/01/2002 10:34:50 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: NC_Libertarian
You would probably be surprised if you read his book. Though you may not agree with his "moralism", Bork would have reduced judicial activism. He would have severely limited federal powers and strengthened state and local authority in all areas. I guess you are glad we have Souter and O'Connor instead?

Bork's defeat was not due to his morality, but the fact that he would have worked to dismantle the entire imperial court system. He would have forced Congress to address issues they consistently avoid. His defeat was staggering blow — not just to conservatism, but to the very concept of separation of powers.

May your chains rest lightly upon you.

74 posted on 02/01/2002 11:35:44 AM PST by antidisestablishment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: NC_Libertarian
I have to agree. I am one conservative who is damn glad Bork got Borked. He is an fascist, elitist who doesn't know the constitution as well as he thinks he does. He would be more comfortable amongst Sierra Clubbers.
80 posted on 02/01/2002 11:55:24 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

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