Colonel_Reb
Hall of Famer
What will happen to the god of liberalism? Will Bush cave and appoint a "moderate", or will he try to get in another Robert Bork? These are questions I think about sometimes. I just saw an article on Bork and thought one paragraph in particular stands out in regards to this website. It is as follows:
In a commentary posted on the Internet that day, William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, described Oct. 23, 1987 -- the date of the Bork vote -- as "a day that lives in conservative infamy" and said, "Now 18 years later, George W. Bush has the chance to reverse this defeat, and to begin to fulfill what has always been one of the core themes of modern American conservatism: the relinking of constitutional law and constitutional jurisprudence to the Constitution."
"Bork has eagerly joined the fray over O'Connor's successor. In a column in the Wall Street Journal last week, he castigated the current Supreme Court, writing that it has "denigrated marriage," protected pornography, guaranteed "abortion virtually on demand," "whittled down capital punishment," "mounted a campaign to normalize homosexuality," allowed "discrimination at the expense of white males" and created a justice system "tipping the balance in favor of criminals."
Would Bush even have the guts to put someone up like Bork? I don't know for sure, but I doubt it. I know one thing, if we don't get back to interpreting the Constitution as it was written, we can kiss the future goodbye!
In a commentary posted on the Internet that day, William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, described Oct. 23, 1987 -- the date of the Bork vote -- as "a day that lives in conservative infamy" and said, "Now 18 years later, George W. Bush has the chance to reverse this defeat, and to begin to fulfill what has always been one of the core themes of modern American conservatism: the relinking of constitutional law and constitutional jurisprudence to the Constitution."
"Bork has eagerly joined the fray over O'Connor's successor. In a column in the Wall Street Journal last week, he castigated the current Supreme Court, writing that it has "denigrated marriage," protected pornography, guaranteed "abortion virtually on demand," "whittled down capital punishment," "mounted a campaign to normalize homosexuality," allowed "discrimination at the expense of white males" and created a justice system "tipping the balance in favor of criminals."
Would Bush even have the guts to put someone up like Bork? I don't know for sure, but I doubt it. I know one thing, if we don't get back to interpreting the Constitution as it was written, we can kiss the future goodbye!
