If Obama truthfully states Borks views it will be no problem. if he lies vociferously about them like Ted kennedy did it will be an opportunity for Romany to set the record straight. A Win win situation. One can only hope Romney appoints Bork to the USSC, He is one the is one of the most brilliant jurist of our times.
What are Bork’s views that concern you and put him so far out of the mainstream?
Conservatism wins, Meltzerboy. Drilling for more oil - lower energy prices wins. Or do you prefer hundreds of millions of dollars to failed green energy companies and veto of Keystone pipeline as an energy policy? Obama’s failures on energy is reason alone to vote against him. Do you know that everytime energy costs increase, the working class gets hit? Do you think its easy for those lucky enough to have a job, to get there when gas costs $4.15 a gallon? And yet, you would have us believe Obama is for “the workers” and Romney is for “the rich”. I don’t think people sitting at home without a job, or struggling to pay for gas will really care about what Bork said in his confirmation hearings 30 years ago. And conservatives - who Romney needs - like what Bork said.
Bork’s views as they appear in his writings are extreme: for example, that free speech should apply only to political speech, not to non-political opinions, the news, literature, etc. Or his belief that the Fourteenth Amendment should be applied only to racial discrimination, not gender discrimination. And so forth. He modified some of his extreme views at the hearings, but one was not sure what his present beliefs really were. His legal knowledge and scholarship were not contested; only the substance of his non-mainstream ideas and, for liberals, his strict constructionist view of the Constitution which made no provision for privacy, for example.
Yes, Kathleen, Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy led the charge against Robert Bork, together with the NAACP, the ACLU, NOW, and other groups. We’d probably be better off without so much freedom, so I can sort of understand where Bork was coming from. Still, restrictions on freedom of speech and the press can become a slippery slope in the direction of governmental tyranny, which neither Republicans nor Democrats would want.
Drilling for more oil here lowers energy prices where and how? To my understanding, (correct me if I’m wrong) US drilling has increased significantly in the last decade. Whither oil prices?
TV’s are still sold with off-switches and parental controls, no?
But Romney doesn’t need conservatives to win, he needs independents who are centrist, like me.
This.
I’m just reading up on Bork (not too familiar with all his views) and the little that I see seems to indicate that Romney is not interested in attracting people like you, Jim. A ‘small’ poll tax …seriously? I’d really like to understand Romney’s thought processes.But Romney doesn’t need conservatives to win, he needs independents who are centrist, like me.
Jim
He was hired as the attorney to defend the law.
Obama was thinking of releasing oil from Strategic Oil Reserve (SPR) because it would reduce gas prices. Increasing supply reduces cost. When Katrina happend, the Jones Act was suspended which allowed non US flagged ships to move oil around the US which lowered prices. Act stops excess oil being moved by ship to refineries in other places, and transport can be done by union workers on US flagged vessels. Obama has upheld the act
Obama was thinking of releasing oil from Strategic Oil Reserve (SPR) because it would reduce gas prices. Increasing supply reduces cost. When Katrina happend, the Jones Act was suspended by Bush and it lowered gas prices. Act stops excess oil being moved by ship to refineries in other places, and transport can be done by union workers on US flagged vessels. Obama has upheld the act as he said he would to unions
That was rare disaster, the jones act worked to lower gas prices and it can do again
Spill was rare disaster, the jones act worked to lower gas prices and it can do again