Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Things that Robert Bork thought are not unconstitutional


Restaurants, hotels etc excluding blacks (he called it a “departure from the freedom of the individual to decide with whom he will deal”).

Racially restrictive covenants in property deeds.

Banning gay sex: “We would find it impossible to conclude that a right to homosexual conduct is ‘fundamental’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ unless any and all private sexual behavior falls within those categories, a conclusion we are unwilling to draw.” Indeed, the right of the majority to legislate morality is “the very predicate of democratic government”.

Banning married people buying contraceptives.

Regulating artistic speech (he thought the 1st Amendment mostly just applied to political speech).

Prosecuting people (Martin Luther King Jr comes to mind) advocating violating the law.

Prosecuting flag-burners.

Involuntary sterilization of inmates.

A chemical company ordering its female employees to get sterilized.

The president ordering wiretaps without a warrant.

The president excluding foreigners from the country.

Applying the 14th Amendment to anything other than race: “The bare concept of equality provides no guide for courts. All law discriminates and therefore creates inequality.”

For example, the establishment of different drinking ages for men and women.

Poll taxes.

Oh, and banning abortion, of course.

And he only got worse after his nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected in 1987. I wrote in 2005, “Bork is living proof that one can also be driven mad by lack of power.”

Don't see comments? Click on the post title to view or post comments.

2 comments:

  1. And it should be noted that 42 senators were more than willing to confirm him.

    The list includes plenty of Republicans still serving, such as Mitch McConnell, John McCain, and Chuck Grassley.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Some of whom spent many years complaining that Bork had been demonized and that the whole process had been illegitimate and divisive.

    ReplyDelete