Category Archives: Political Philosophy

Robert Bork: Sotomayor Pick ‘A Bad Mistake’

Constitution, Law, Political Philosophy, The Courts

Robert Bork: Sotomayor Pick ‘A Bad Mistake’
By Barbara Grant

What does it mean, “to bork”? Readers too young to recall the 1987 Senate confirmation hearings on Robert Bork’s nomination as Supreme Court Justice might refer to this piece in which Judge Robert Bork discusses Sonia Sotomayor and calls her nomination a “bad mistake.”

To “bork” a nominee means to block him (or her) from appointment to public office. Bork avers that President Barack Obama’s standard of “empathy” in judge selection bodes ill for the selection of a justice who supports constitutional principles. He notes that “wise Latina” Sotomayor has less than a stellar record in her judicial opinions, and is in fact noted for bullying from the bench. However, he also offers that she will likely not be “any worse than some recent white male appointees.”

Bork calls himself an originalist, which means that he tries to interpret the Constitution in the manner it was drafted, at all times seeking first principles. This is different from the “judicial activism” principle currently held by many, in which justices twist the document to conform to preconceived political stances.

Robert Bork is adamantly opposed to twisting the Constitution; he also believes his opposition to Roe v. Wade on constitutional grounds was pivotal to his nomination’s rejection.

Where does the current trend toward “empathy” leave a highly principled man like Robert Bork? Still interested in the Constitution, but also wary of our justices’ decisions. “If you want to know what the constitution means, you will not learn it from the court,” he said.

BAB Contributor Barbara Grant is a consultant in electro-optical engineering and co-author of “The Art of Radiometry,” a forthcoming book on the measurement of light, to be published by SPIE PressB.

Robert Bork: Sotomayor Pick 'A Bad Mistake'

Constitution, Law, Political Philosophy, The Courts

Robert Bork: Sotomayor Pick ‘A Bad Mistake’
By Barbara Grant

What does it mean, “to bork”? Readers too young to recall the 1987 Senate confirmation hearings on Robert Bork’s nomination as Supreme Court Justice might refer to this piece in which Judge Robert Bork discusses Sonia Sotomayor and calls her nomination a “bad mistake.”

To “bork” a nominee means to block him (or her) from appointment to public office. Bork avers that President Barack Obama’s standard of “empathy” in judge selection bodes ill for the selection of a justice who supports constitutional principles. He notes that “wise Latina” Sotomayor has less than a stellar record in her judicial opinions, and is in fact noted for bullying from the bench. However, he also offers that she will likely not be “any worse than some recent white male appointees.”

Bork calls himself an originalist, which means that he tries to interpret the Constitution in the manner it was drafted, at all times seeking first principles. This is different from the “judicial activism” principle currently held by many, in which justices twist the document to conform to preconceived political stances.

Robert Bork is adamantly opposed to twisting the Constitution; he also believes his opposition to Roe v. Wade on constitutional grounds was pivotal to his nomination’s rejection.

Where does the current trend toward “empathy” leave a highly principled man like Robert Bork? Still interested in the Constitution, but also wary of our justices’ decisions. “If you want to know what the constitution means, you will not learn it from the court,” he said.

BAB Contributor Barbara Grant is a consultant in electro-optical engineering and co-author of “The Art of Radiometry,” a forthcoming book on the measurement of light, to be published by SPIE PressB.

Libertarian ‘Idiocracy’ Rising

Intelligence, libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Pop-Culture, Pseudo-intellectualism, The West, The Zeitgeist

Over the pixelated pages of Barely A Blog and IlanaMercer.com, I’ve devoted time and effort to elucidating where libertarianism has gone wrong. The sexy, rah-rah, fist-in-the air aura of anarchism has attracted the worst to the movement. My own readers are constantly seduced and pulled back, on BAB, from the brink of errant thinking—as when they fall into pacifism or social determinism.

Then there are the dumbing-down forces that have taken their toll on the Zeitgeist in general. In America, and elsewhere, we are in the throes of an era that elevates and celebrates the worst of humanity, man and woman; intellect and ethics. To get an exaggerated sense of what the consequences of such a persistent upheaval in the natural order, I recommend my all-time favorite social commentary, “Idiocracy.” Comedic reductio ad absurdum is better than the kind of social science-cum-social engineering produced these days by the likes of Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam.

After that prelude, please take a look at what goes for gritty libertarian thought on the website of The Examiner: “Is cannibalism really wrong or just taboo?”

An intellectual pygmy and shock jock gets a forum. An even stupider editor believes musing about cannibalism is edgy and exciting. Your main deduction here as far as libertarianism goes must not involve libertarian legal theory. For the act of cannibalism should go unpunished only in extremis—where the individual would not survive unless he indulges.

Otherwise, a society that is reduced to the skeletal essence of the non-aggression axiom is not a civil society, but an “Idiocracy.” (Bless Mike Judge for that stroke of genius.)

Libertarian 'Idiocracy' Rising

Intelligence, libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Pop-Culture, Pseudo-intellectualism, The West, The Zeitgeist

Over the pixelated pages of Barely A Blog and IlanaMercer.com, I’ve devoted time and effort to elucidating where libertarianism has gone wrong. The sexy, rah-rah, fist-in-the air aura of anarchism has attracted the worst to the movement. My own readers are constantly seduced and pulled back, on BAB, from the brink of errant thinking—as when they fall into pacifism or social determinism.

Then there are the dumbing-down forces that have taken their toll on the Zeitgeist in general. In America, and elsewhere, we are in the throes of an era that elevates and celebrates the worst of humanity, man and woman; intellect and ethics. To get an exaggerated sense of what the consequences of such a persistent upheaval in the natural order, I recommend my all-time favorite social commentary, “Idiocracy.” Comedic reductio ad absurdum is better than the kind of social science-cum-social engineering produced these days by the likes of Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam.

After that prelude, please take a look at what goes for gritty libertarian thought on the website of The Examiner: “Is cannibalism really wrong or just taboo?”

An intellectual pygmy and shock jock gets a forum. An even stupider editor believes musing about cannibalism is edgy and exciting. Your main deduction here as far as libertarianism goes must not involve libertarian legal theory. For the act of cannibalism should go unpunished only in extremis—where the individual would not survive unless he indulges.

Otherwise, a society that is reduced to the skeletal essence of the non-aggression axiom is not a civil society, but an “Idiocracy.” (Bless Mike Judge for that stroke of genius.)