Abso-Bork-ly Amazing
Via Josh Rosenau ("Respect for Dissent"), we find that Robert Bork can still say the most amazing and alarming things. Quoting others quoting Bork writing in the National Review:
Liberty in America can be enhanced by reinstating, legislatively, restraints upon the direction of our culture and morality. Censorship as an enhancement of liberty may seem paradoxical. Yet it should be obvious, to all but dogmatic First Amendment absolutists, that people forced to live in an increasingly brutalized culture are, in a very real sense, not wholly free.
It's so refreshing to discover that "strict constructionists" — or is it "constitutional originalists" this year? — have now learned how to interpret the US Constitution and are no longer to be misconstrued as "absolutists". Fascinating.
In: All, Common-Place Book, Raised Eyebrows Dept.
2 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Tuesday, 7 March 2006 at 04.20
Permalink
How is it people are "forced to live an increasingly brutalized culture"? If they find the culture so brutalized, whatever that actually means, as to be unacceptable they're free to leave. Or, they're free to do what they reasonably can to unbrutalize it.
Even without leaving, if he's talking about sex and violence in the media, out of porn shops and such, people who take offense are free to not partake. I've been around awhile, eyes open, and I've yet to see anyone being dragged against their will into a XXX movie house or porn shop or anything like that.
What censorship legislation does Bork have in mind? Not that I really want to know; it's like you look at the scene of a wreck along the highway, not really wanting to see carnage.
This nonsense confirms how utterly unsuited this hack lawyer was for the Supreme Court. We definitely dodged a bullet.
on Tuesday, 7 March 2006 at 13.57
Permalink
It's hard to guess just what Bork might have in mind to rationalize away, but the remarks sound remarkably like they have an agenda in mind, although it's possible that he's just trying to justify a broad mandate for the "unitary president" to trim a few more freedoms here and there — to make us more free, of course!