ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER: A Conversation with Robert Bork
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 май 2024
- There are often said to be two competing schools for interpreting the meaning of the Constitution. On one side are those who believe that the meaning of the Constitution must evolve over time as society itself changes. On the other side are those who insist that the original intent of the framers of the Constitutionâ what they wrote and what their intent was in writing itâ is all that matters. Robert Bork is firmly in the latter school. We asked him to explicate his understanding of the U.S. Constitution, using recent Supreme Court decisions as case studies.
On all of these hot-button cultural issues, the Originalist or Textualist jurist does not take a position as to whether, in a free and democratic society, these things (abortion, gay marriage, death penalty, etc) should be permitted or not. The question before a judge is much more narrow and technical, and that is whether or not the Constitution addresses the subject at hand and what it says relevant to that subject. Scalia has said repeatedly, and I'm sure Judge Bork would've agreed, that if you want a right to abortion or gay marriage or to abolish the death penalty then you should persuade your fellow citizens and act through the democratic process. That is the essence of self-government. But the idea that it is the job of judges to mold the Constitution to suit some ulterior social aim is undemocratic and amounts, in effect, to judicial tyranny. Judges become philosopher kings.
What a great man he was. RIP Mr. Robert Bork.
What a brilliant mind!
Order doesn't necessarily demolish one's free will; and no order doesn't necessarily mean one is free.
For those who come across the word "bork" or "borked" this is the person from whence it grew. Good interview and pertinent questions. 30 years after his hearings before the Senate, one can see what started the hubbub. He was honest about his ideas and if politically that didn't work "at that time" so much for him. Surpeme Court had been about character, experience, brain power. The political party gets to choose and they did. This time, with Bork, it was his ideas or thought patterns that were used to make him seem unfit. Politics moved to the Court in an ugly way. The way the Congress moved against the Executive in ugly ways with special prosecutor laws. People don't want the corrupt or the stupid or the inexperienced on the Supreme Court; everything else the Executive gets to pick.
Originalism and living constitution are not the only theories. One can interpret the Constitution textually without analyzing the original intent. Rehnquist would be an example of the latter.
I'm gay but it's hard to find strong minds in USA. He should have been on the Supreme Court
Incredible: Scalia and Bork were able to predict the legalization of gay marriage, and withdrawal of legal unions from democratic interference, based on the gradual imposition of increasingly progressive legislative terms by the court.
Just one correction in the given intro: originalism doesn’t refer to intent, but meaning. There is an important difference, in that it makes the philosophy compatible with textualist interpretation
If Bork had served on the Supreme Court, we would not have the sanctioning of immoral acts that are so prevalent and more commonly accepted in our society today. The supreme court has put a "legal" stamp on every aberrant behavior imaginable. But being legal does not necessarily mean being "moral."
It's not a question of the Supreme Court sanctioning immoral acts, it's a question of whether the Federal Govt. can usurp the rights of the States to determine their own marriage laws. No matter what you think about gay marriage in the abstract, the one principle of Constitutional government and the Bill of Rights in particular is that it is not designed to restrict the behavior of citizens; it's there to restrict the behavior of the government against citizens. Which is why if it had come down to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage I would've opposed it with every fiber of my being. If individual States want to deal with the gay marriage question through legislation it is their sovereign right to do so -- which would better reflect the sentiments of the public in those states. It is not the province of the Federal Govt. to decide who gets to marry and who doesn't. Any Supreme Court or Federal action that restricts the rights of the people I consider unconstitutional.
Exactly right. Kennedy replaced Bork. He turned out to be a disaster. Americans will pay for generations because of Kennedy's decisions. Not only America, but the rest of the world embraced the abominations soon after America legalized it.
It's a give and take. He would've overturned Griswold, Roe and upheld Bowers, but he seemed to have a narrow view on free speech and Heller would've gone the other way, meaning he did not recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Exactly! We would be deep in tyranny by a benevolent government that can't be bothered with how the people feel about issues that are just too trivial. It's called Fascism--and Bork was a dedicated Fascist because he simply knew he was
exceedingly smart and correct about every view he had. Those peasants should not forget their place.
At the end of this video Robert Bork states, "Marriage itself is too important, I think, to be sacrificed in the way that homosexual marriage would do." Note: Robert Bork died December 19, 2012.
Hugo Black was the original originalist. Why don't you take a look at his opinions?
>>tirade against gay marriage
That's a typical response.
A forthcoming constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage, Bob? Iffy indeed. Lol.
Bork's tirade against gay marriage proves just how closely tied social conservatism and originalism are.
In fact it went far to show how inconsistent and convenient the philosophy can be to strike down societal change that occurs.
That was hardly a tirade.
He's saying marrige will be sacrificed by allowing gay marrige. That is not a fact. That's an opinion based on emotion.
Yes, we must respect the original intent of slave owners. If we modernize our thinking, that's going to far! Haha! That's absurd!