Bork was not an originalist. If he were he would have advocated a reading of the Second Amendment that outlaws all firearms in private hands, except for muskets and single-shot pistols, for those are clearly the weapons the writers of the Constitution intended. They could not have intended to permit AK-47s and the like because they could not even conceive such weapons. One can intend only what one can conceive.
"Bon temps jolie," the only "specific legal result" Bork campaigned for was an honest judiciary.
You haters seem to have no clue what "honest" even means. You can't cite those imaginary "unequivocally racist anti-integration writings," because they don't exist. You think that smearing a man's good name with blatant lies, while hiding in anonymity behind a pseudonym, is jolly good fun, but to decent people it's the lowest form of dishonesty.
Why are liberals sooooo consistently dishonest, and sooooo relentlessly vicious?
Didn't Judge Bork get into trouble with confirmation because he had been out campaigning for specific legal results for years and for specific changes to laws ??? Also because he was embarrassingly unequivocally racist in his anti-integration writings?
Ned Flaherty, like the White Queen, apparently believes that words can mean whatever he wants them to mean. So if the U.S. Constitution contains no language protecting behaviors that were everywhere illegal when it was written, Flaherty calls it "especially vicious" for Bork to admit that fact and refuse to pretend otherwise.
It is a fundamental premise of our American system of government that laws and legislators acquire their legitimacy by one means, and one means only: through "the consent of the governed." (Liberals like Ned: please go ahead and google that phrase.)
We, the governed, have NOT given our jurists the authority to rewrite our Constitution and laws. We have democratic means for changing them, if they need changing.
Our forefathers fought two wars against Great Britain to deprive autocrats of the ability to usurp the People's authority. But Ned Flaherty thinks that a panel of nine unelected autocrats should be able to pretend our Constitution and laws mean whatever they think it ought.
I think Ned should move to some country that's governed his way: by a junta.
Ned doesn't believe in the democratic process, but I do, and I thank God for Robert Bork's tireless work to strengthen American democracy.
If the libs hadn't "borked" America's best-qualified jurist and legal scholar in 1987, Obama would now get to fill his seat on the SCOTUS. Serves 'em right.
Pretend what you want. Bork was rejected as an extremist, and for good reason.
This article refers to the “enormous success” of Judge Bork’s legacy.
The facts prove otherwise.
In cases involving citizens, government, and industry, Bork sided nearly always with first with industry and second with government, and he almost always sided against consumers, employees, and environmental activists.
He repeatedly cited “moral order” and America’s “decadence” as his justification for opposing desegregation, privacy, and freedom of speech. Arguing that the right to free speech does not include art, literature, or editorials, he claimed that it applies only to politics.
He was especially vicious toward LGBT people, and ruled in 1984 that “private, consensual sexual conduct is not constitutionally protected” — whenever it involves homosexual people, precisely because they are homosexual, and because he treated homosexuals as not having the rights that everyone else does.
He endorsed the most extreme right-wing views, denying both evolution theory in particular, and science in general.
Very few call his legacy “successful” and most call it repudiated and rejected.