Best
58 Comments
Post
  • #4
    !
    The scariest part is that he remained an influential Republican until the end. He was, many of you will remember, a close adviser to the late Romney campaign.
  • #7
    !
    At least he was a real conservative, not a neocon who trashes the Constitution just like a Democrat doesn't give a second thought about doing.
  • #17
    !
    @woodtick57 Democrats obviously need no explanation. They see it as a nuisance and once the republicans finish committing suicide, they'll be in charge of a one-party socialist state that will make being a white male or a successful person a terrorist act due to their ideals of Marxist forced equality. Make no mistake, the core group of the Democratic party are communists. Not even worth debating.

    But on to the neocons. Now these are people whom are going to actually kill the GOP. Why? Because they believe in a means to an end. Remember where neoconservatism came from. From a man named Leo Strauss. A man from German who LIKED Hitler's ideas of national socialism and neoconservative (ultra right) fascist views. Slight problem...he was JEWISH and not invited to the Nazi Party. So he fled and went to Chicago where at University there is trained the "crazies". People with last names you know...like Pearl, and Wolfowitz. Neocons are essentially fascists, racists, see women as second class, and homophobes that gladly disregard laws to promote their ends for others. Most actually believe that Jesus Christ will actually reward them for promotion of their views. You and others should google "leo strauss" and learn about why the GOP is going to die.
  • #20
    !
    @RobertJHarsh

    You really need to learn what contitutes being a communist or socialist before commenting on this issue further...parroting sound bytes you do not understand does nothing to further the discussion....
  • #44
    !
    @RobertJHarsh Marxist will make being a white male a terrorist and core of dem party are communist. Wow I haven't taken acid in over 35 years, but reading your post reminds me how it feels. What is in that tea at your parties?
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    !
    Bork...that is some back in the day stuff. But he essentially believed in a REPUBLIC, where the rights of the minorities are protected. They are not today since the US is a democracy...which is a very terrible thing.
  • #42
    !
    Few people know the difference. I tip my hat to you for knowing it, but differ from your conclusion we are a democracy. Did you read his book the tempting of america?
  • #2
    !
    Especially when he summarily ignores the rights of any minority and suggest that only the majority has rights...
  • #11
    !
    @MongoAPillager so democracy means majority rules? Wow, that's scary. It's not a democracy unless every voice can be heard. Every rights can be exercised.
  • #23
    !
    There's one of your sticking points in understanding conservatives and libertarians Sonny. When it comes to "rights", we think of "individual rights"... regardless of whether that individual is a member of a majority or a minority.

    And that's exactly what the 14th Amendment says. Nothing about "Identity Group Rights."

    Here's the pertinent part of that Amendment which would be interpreted just as "strictly"...(my emphasis added)

    "Section 1. All PERSONS born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amend...

    Do I have to repeat myself or have you read my other posts on here?
  • #25
    !
    @Bobolinsky

    So the majority of a state voting to ban some of its fellow citizens from exercizing their right would be unconstitutional, huh? Like the SSM amendments so many states have unconstitutionallyvoted on...
  • R Load more replies

  • #22
    !
    RIP to a good man. And he wasn't rejected by the Senate, he was crucified by the loony left. A much better man than Ted "Waterworks" Kennedy. ROH.
  • #6
    !
    I never said a bad word about Congressman Daniel Inouye when he passed away, as
    I am always saddened when anyone passes away from either party. That said, I see the Left is starting to point fingers. yada yada, regarding Bork... when I mentioned Inouye's passing to my husband, who is not near as kind as me, replied..Oh, you mean
    "Dan In The Way" ... just saying. May they BOTH rest in peace.
  • #29
    !
    Good point, however, the difference is that Politix didn't make a reader's poll out of Inouye's political leanings, which they have done here, hence people feel free to voice opinions on Bork's politics. Not saying it's right, just saying it was invited.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #8
    !
    "The term has been criticized[7] as being a misleading or meaningless term.[8] Few judges self-identify as strict constructionists, due to the narrow meaning of the term. Antonin Scalia, the justice most identified with the term, has said that he is "not a strict constructionist and no one ought to be," and has called the philosophy "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute." Scalia further distinguished the two philosophies by stating that "[a] text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."[9] Constitutional scholar John Hart Ely opined that it was not really a philosophy of law or a theory of interpretation, but a coded label for judicial decisions popular with a particular political party.[10]"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_construct...

    I'm an "original meaning" guy.
    "What would a reasonable person living at the time of ratification have understood these words to mean?"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_meaning
  • #12
    !
    @Bobolinsky Can you explain how a strict interpretation of this Article prohibits amendments to the Constitution? It does restrict amendments recommended before 1808 (long past) and it prohibits any amendment that would exclude any state from having a vote in the Senate. Other than that, it appears to outline conditions in which amendments can be proposed and ratified.
  • #14
    !
    @Bobolinsky-- Maybe I should explain a little more. A strict constructionist would interpret the 14th Amendment and the 27th Amendment just as strictly as they would interpret Article I or Amendment 1.
  • #15
    !
    @Bobolinsky I was responding to the article which said that Judge Bork "advocated a view of judging known as "strict constructionism," or "originalism," because it seeks to limit constitutional values to those explicitly enunciated by the Framers and to reject those that evolved in later generations." Is it illogical to assume that amendments to the Constitution created by later generations would result from values that evolved in later generations?
  • R Load more replies

Post