home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27 / NN_1992_27.iso / spool / alt / society / civillic / 6606 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-11-17  |  2.2 KB
  1. Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:6606 alt.activism:18930 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1113 soc.history:9495 talk.politics.theory:4963
  2. Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,soc.history,talk.politics.theory
  3. Path: sparky!uunet!boulder!ucsu!ucsu.Colorado.EDU!fcrary
  4. From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
  5. Subject: Re: [ACLU] Guardian of Liberty: American Civil Liberties Union
  6. Message-ID: <1992Nov18.012950.29966@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
  7. Sender: news@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (USENET News System)
  8. Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
  9. Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
  10. References: <BxtFLA.6oD@cs.uiuc.edu> <1992Nov16.211433.19464@sei.cmu.edu> <1992Nov17.001854.21773@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
  11. Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:29:50 GMT
  12. Lines: 30
  13.  
  14. In article <1992Nov17.001854.21773@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
  15. >...Bork has a long history of studying constitutional law.
  16. >He has, however, gained a set of opinions about the matter that are
  17. >significantly at variance with many (but not all) other constitutional
  18. >scholars. Since nobody has anything but opinions about the
  19. >Constitution...
  20.  
  21. That's a very debatable point, but in any case...
  22.  
  23. >...it seems perfectly reasonable that he should be judged
  24. >by some people to have sufficiently inappropriate ones for the job.
  25.  
  26. I don't see how holding unpopular opinions should disqualify a
  27. Supreme Court Justice. Hugh Black, for example, held many unpopular
  28. views on constitutional interpertation, but he is considered to be
  29. one of the "great" Justices of this century.
  30.  
  31. >Would you insist that any person with a Bork's background in
  32. >constitutional law be eligible for the Court, and that the Senate
  33. >should pay no attention to their opinions ?
  34.  
  35. Actually, I would: My opinion of the "advice and consent" is that
  36. the Senate should accept anyone technically qualified and able to
  37. do the job (e.g. exactly what it means when in the case of appointed
  38. executive officials like the Secretary of Interior. In these cases,
  39. the Senate doesn't subject appointees to political litmus tests.)
  40.  
  41.                                              Frank Crary
  42.                                              CU Boulder
  43.  
  44.