Sigh squared.

Actually he did not, for he lacked a grasp of the very broadness of the terms, as amply demonstrated in his Neolithic opinions.

Not only was there the amendment process, but words were carefully chosen down to the last preposition.

Ex- wiretapping was not in the Framers’ minds because telephones and electronic devices were not even dreamt possible. Yet, sans an amendment, it was figured out when and how privacy could be invaded, and when and how not.

That’s in the design of the words, as rightly interpreted by ‘activist judges.’

Try again, DLS.

You mean the merits of what he had written then or the clarifications he has since written where he extols the virtues of censorship?

Censorship? (Ah, yes, community standards and other standards of conduct, which are particularly outrageous to children who want to do whatever they want.)

Or the slip-and-fall lawsuit (later-amended version) he filed against the Yale Club?

The answer is, the former, the writings about law, the issue here — as opposed to his “curmudgeon” elderly ways now (or his lawsuit).

the Framers, in their Original Intent, designed the document for maximum latitude they knew future generations would have and understand things beyond them

*sigh* Bork explained, accurately, what this really means and what it does not mean (it is not license to substitute judges’ whims and wishes). The Framers of course knew the document could and would be changed, and included an amendment process (and a convention process) for this purpose; preceding cases may be a basis for making future rulings. In no way did the Framers intend for the Constitution to be construed to men whatever someone wants it to mean — obviously.

But then, too few here have been willing (and may well be unable; who knows?) to read what another user mentioned in a different context:

Bork was an excellent choice for the court if anyone had taken the time to debate him on the merits of his writings.

From everything I’ve read (his book, plus news articles) and seen (2 of his book signning events on C-Span, plus other interviews)., I’ve come to believe the man is in the grip of his emotions and personal exoeruences to a degree way beyond what is normally acceptable, His point of reference is himself to an alarming degree., but the Constitution should not be read as being about him.

I also don’t like the dismissive way Hill is referred to.
I take her corroborating witnesses seriously. I take them more seiously now than I did then. His self-absorbed personality is exactly the kind who could be hurting someone without acknowledging it, because it’s always about, and exclusively about, what it means to him and how he’s feeling.

Okay. A little pop psychology here.
Or, it could be insight.

This common sense has been lost in the interim by people who claim Strict Constructionism while oblivious of the document’s purpose and provenance.

Aside from his lack of ethics and intellectual limits, Bork was just a miserable bastard (aka scummy and vicious)- see the above mention of the Saturday Night Massacre by Davebo.

I think there should be a rudimentary grasp of basic law and human nature that is concomitant w an appointment to ANY judgeship.

And this comes from an es-public employee who worked in a courthouse.

People do NOT believe some of the things I tell them about the way even lower courts work- the bias (apolitical), unprofessionalism, and plain old wackiness are enough to make anyone roll their eyes.

To smooth off the rough edges on my view of Thomas a bit, I too agree that the hearings were a travesty and he indeed should have been confirmed, but this is because I believe a president should be given substantial leeway in selecting justices.

That so noted, I won’t budget on my view that Thomas is a dangerous lightweight.

I’m old enough to remember those confirmation hearings and as I watched was screaming at the TV.

Somebody, just mention the massacre and we can end this entire farce!

They didn’t listen though.

I never understood why. It was, to use Tenet’s phrasing, a slam dunk.

And just to show some fairness, I also watched the travesty of the Thomas confirmation. I don’t like Clarence Thomas, I don’t agree with him on most issues. But I could find no reason he shouldn’t have been confirmed. Sure he had conservative views, but so did the president who nominated him.

I’m amazed at times at the thought process politicians must go through when deciding what fights to pick.

You are more correct about O’Connor than you may realize.

In another thread at my own blog, I noted that I once hugely admired William O. Douglas — the longest-serving justice in SCOTUS history — but reviled the man by the time he finally retired not a day too soon.

While I never disliked O’Connor, my respect for her grew and grew in large part because of the pragatism that she embraced, as opposed to the Thomases, Scalias and Douglases.

I don’t want to overstate this, but I believe that the court is at its best when it more or less reflects the views of the American public. O’Connor had an uncanny knack of doing just that.

“he fact remains that there is no right to privacy in the constitution.”

The only fact remaining is actually that there are two major, with other minor, Constitutional philosophies and the ‘facts’ in the Constituion depend on which philosophy guides the reading of the text.
I have chosen a side in the philosophy competition, but I can still acknowledge that others may see it defferently.

That’s why extremists on either side are so dangerous. If they get the upper hand, the law of the land takes violent swings from one direction to the other, ensuring instablilty and producing mistrust.

That’s why pragmatists like O’Connor played such a vital role. She remembered to feflect on how a ruling would affect the people who will be impacted. The new jusdges on the SC lack that talent and that wisdom.

That’s why the next election will also have consequences. .

You rush to judgment on abortion.

As I note above, it was a woman who rallied a majority of justices to strike down the last head-on attempt to strike down Roe v. Wade.

In fact, Toobin goes so far as to say that calling that era the Rehnquist Court is something of a misnomer, and as solid a chief justice as he was (and one whom on balance I respected), a more accurate label would be the O’Connor Court.

This brings me back to my criticism of Thomas.

O’Connor showed extraordinary growth as a jurist during her 25 years on the court although there were many instances when I did not agree with her and the fellow justices with whom she sided. Thomas, on the other hand, arrived at the Court with deeply rigid and dogmatic views of the Constitution and law and, if anything, those views have become even more deeply entrenched.

In short, Thomas has not grown as a jurist or an intellect. He is a man of incredible shallowness who demeans the court and the people he professes to serve — and that means all people and all people of color — in his opinions and the extraordinary number of harshly bitter public statements he makes, as is evidenced by his recent autobio.

I think you pretty well nailed it there. It’s getting hard to decide which branch of govt. is more depressing these days. The standards for performance in any of them have dropped so incredibly low.

You give Thomas an unjustified free pass.

Despite overcoming enormous odds to get through college and law school, there is nothing in the character of Thomas nor in his tenure on the court that is admirable.

Dr. King may have objected to my characterization of Thomas, but he would would have been appalled at the man.