SC: America’s Most Criminal State

Republicans want to make an amendment to make birth control illegal, and, ironically, abortion illegal as well.

They also want to eliminate any protections that still may remain against unreasonable search and seizure in their serial failure on the war on drugs.

They would also like to eliminate any protections afforded to “artistic expression,” only leaving “political speech” protected… as long as there’s no way “political speech” conflicts with their religious views.

They would also like to change freedom “from religion” to accepting Christianity as the national religion.

They would also like to establish “God” as a fact by amendment.

They would like to eliminate the words “General Welfare” from both the Preamble and the Taxing and Spending Clause.

They would also like to modify “speedy trial,” “due process,” and “jury of one’s peers” to only apply to white Christian citizens not “captured on the field of battle(which is now the entire world)” or held in Guantanamo or handed over to other governments for interrogation (torture).

They would like to eliminate the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries

Granted: Some republicrats “also want to eliminate any protections that still may remain against unreasonable search and seizure in their serial failure on the war on drugs. …”

And sad to say, they all too often succeed. But there are plenty of complicit demo-Fascists on that side, too. (This is one reason [but not the only] I have been a registered, voting Libertarian since 1984.)

“… They would also like to eliminate any protections afforded to “artistic expression,” only leaving “political speech” protected… as long as there’s no way “political speech” conflicts with their religious views. …”

I have not observed this as yet, even on the rino side of the aisle …
———
Google Bork.

But, as we all should know, 90% of all art is dreck.

——–
Om is where the art is.

He was going to eliminate protections against expression – my *god*, man! PORN!

Robert Bork was an unrepentant reactionary who was on the wrong side of every major legal controversy of the twentieth century. The fifty-eight senators who voted against Bork for confirmation to the Supreme Court in 1987 honored themselves, and the Constitution. In the subsequent quarter-century, Bork devoted himself to proving that his critics were right about him all along.

Bork was born in 1927 and came of age during the civil-rights movement, which he opposed. He was, in the nineteen-sixties, a libertarian of sorts; this worldview led him to conclude that poll taxes were constitutional and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not. (Specifically, he said that law was based on a “principle of unsurpassed ugliness.”) As a professor at Yale Law School, his specialty was antitrust law, which he also (by and large) opposed.

Richard Nixon appointed Bork the Solicitor General of the United States, and in that post Bork showed that he lacked moral courage as well as legal judgment. In 1973, Nixon directed Elliot Richardson, the Attorney General, to fire Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor. Richardson refused and resigned in protest, as did his deputy William Ruckelshaus. Bork, the third-ranking official in the Justice Department, had no such scruples and thus served as executioner in the Saturday Night Massacre, to his enduring shame.

Much of the Bork confirmation questioning focussed on Bork’s long-held belief that the Constitution does not include a right to privacy. As one of the creators of the “originalist” school of constitutional interpretation, Bork asserted that since the framers did not use the word “privacy,” that value was not reflected in our founding document. Accordingly, he opposed such decisions as Griswold v. Connecticut, which said states could not ban married couples from buying birth control, and Roe v. Wade, which prohibits states from banning abortion. He promised the senators he would reflect those views as a Supreme Court Justice.

Bork was adamant that Roe v. Wade (1973) be overturned and states be given the power to prosecute women and doctors who violate state criminal abortion laws.

It was said, in later years, that Bork was “borked,” which came to mean treated unfairly in the confirmation process. This is not so. Bork was “borked” simply by being confronted with his own views—which would have undone many of the great constitutional landmarks in recent American history. As Senator Edward Kennedy put it in a famous speech on the Senate floor, “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, [and] writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government.”

Was Kennedy too harsh? He was not—as Bork himself demonstrated in the series of intemperate books he wrote after losing the Supreme Court fight and quitting the bench, in 1987. The titles alone were revealing: ”The Tempting of America,” “Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline,” and “Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges.” One of his last books may have summed up his views best. Thanks in part to decisions of the Supreme Court—decisions that, for the most part, Bork abhorred—the United States became a more tolerant and inclusive place, with greater freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination than any society in history. Bork called the book, accurately, “A Country I Do Not Recognize.”

In large areas of constitutional law, Judge Robert Bork is a committed radical. He wants to tear up settled understandings of the Constitution, root and branch.

In a famous article he wrote in 1971, Bork argued that the First Amendment protects only political speech, not art, literature, movies and so on.

he continued to aggressively promote censorship to deal with what he has called the “rot and decadence” of American society. In a 1997 interview with Michael Cromartie, Bork expressed such desperation about the state of American culture that he came out in favor of a return to censorship boards in America, rejecting any nuanced treatment of materials he disfavors, saying: “I don’t make any fine distinctions; I’m just advocating censorship.”

Bork not only contended that every pro-gay rights decision the Court has ever rendered is wrong, but he seeks to amend the Constitution to enshrine his views. Dropping any pretense of supporting the traditional right of states under federalism to choose their own policies on marriage, Bork has advocated passage of a constitutional amendment that would permanently define marriage as between “one man and one woman” and prevent the states from offering gay couples equal benefits of any kind.

Bork frequently used incendiary rhetoric to denounce gay rights, as when he said that, if same-sex marriage passes, “I think we’ll become much more accommodating to man-boy associations, polygamists and so forth.”

He also said, “the fossil record is proving a major embarrassment to evolutionary theory” and claimied that one scientist “has shown that Darwinism cannot explain life as we know it.”In Bork’s view, right here at home, “America is engaged in a religious war.”

His approach to freedom of speech isn’t pretty. The willingness to let people express ideas that a majority find offensive, even dangerous, is a distinctive feature of American society: one of its glories, some would say. Judge Bork disagrees with the legal tradition… and in my opinion, freedom.

Bork opposed our god-given right to porn!

. . .

Did you read the rest of it?

He was a sociopathic prick who based his hatred for freedom and art on religion.

When it comes to insane pedantic translation, only Tomás de Torquemada was in his class.

I believe Thee protests too much, or maybe not enough … It also appears you have no trouble taking the side of us (small “l”) libertarians
-00———–
Libertarians are materialist, selfish kooks. Harmless.

while besmirching the republicrats,
———-
Baptist reactionaries, anti-intellectual hatists, sociopaths, racists, led by fools – Republicans are scum

but may be a bit blind-eyed when it comes to the “liberal”elitist Fascists pretending to be on the left.
—–
amateurs.