Lest there be any doubt, this suggestion to resubmit Bork’s name for Senate consideration is no satirical flourish. I am absolutely, positively serious about this. Bork was abundantly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court when he was nominated (and rejected) in 1987 and he remains so today because he is widely acknowledged as one of the foremost legal scholars in the United States.
Right.
Here's Bork's take on the Second Amendment:
"The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose."Bork that.
And Bork you, Mr. Rice, and all the other establishment neocons who would pass this fraud off as a strict constructionist.
4 comments:
I posted the below comment on another page when someone there suggested the same idiotic alternative. The opinion of Bork that I have held ever since his confirmation hearings has to do with the fact that he can't read and comprehend the fourth amendment either. The man is functionally illiterate, but creatively restrictive. See next.
"Bork is not qualified. He is functionally illiterate. He is also, not a poitical conservative, but a social conservative. So, even if he gets an aide to read and explain the constitution to him, it wouldn’t bear on his opinion. " said I.
God help us, if a man of his soaring ignorance is considered a leading legal scholar.
After reading this speech (http://www.constitution.org/col/jrb/00420_jrb_fedsoc.rtf) by Janice Rogers Brown, she gets my vote for the next "supreme". It appears she is a libertarian at heart and desires to stay within constitutional restraints as a judge.
Thanks for the post on Bork - that's SCARY!
Typical political hack. Since the gubmint has nukes, the people shouldn't be "permitted" to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from such weaponry.
If one takes Bork's reasoning to its logical conclusion, under the protections of the Second Amendment, the People should be allowed to keep and bear anti-aircraft missiles to protect themselves from the government and its nukes.
What a maroon....
Anonymous federalist society guy here. I've met Bork a few times in the past few years and he is barely ambulatory and quite possibly becoming senile. Even if he were an otherwise good candidate for the supreme court (which he isn't), I wouldn't want him there because I don't think he is in adequate physical condition to handle it.
And I also agree that Janice Rogers Brown has supreme court written all over her. I heard her speak last year and everyone who heard her agreed that she was "Reganesque"- right on all the issues, incredibly good delivery, well written, just overall incredible. The only problem is that the republicans have forgotten how to be conservatives and it may be a while before the senate will be ready to confirm someone like her.
Post a Comment