Would You Trade Scalia for Bork?

[Wakie]

In 1986 Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork for the Supreme Court.  Bork's nomination was blocked for a number of reasons (including his well-publicized beliefs that citizens are not guaranteed a right to privacy and that antitrust laws are unconstituitional).  After Bork's nomination was defeated Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia to the seat and he was easily confirmed.

Regardless of your political affiliation, would you trade Scalia for Bork?

[opebo]

Scalia is far preferable.

[King]

No

[The Dowager Mod]

Yes.

[A18]

Bork doesn't sound bad, but I like Scalia too

[Nym90]

Are you sure it was Scalia? I'm pretty sure Anthony Kennedy was the justice chosen instead of Bork. Maybe I'm wrong.

[A18]

Anthony Kennedy was chosen in 1988.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

You mean the Swedish Chef?  Sure!

[??????????]

In 1986 Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork for the Supreme Court.  Bork's nomination was blocked for a number of reasons (including his well-publicized beliefs that citizens are not guaranteed a right to privacy and that antitrust laws are unconstituitional).  After Bork's nomination was defeated Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia to the seat and he was easily confirmed.

Regardless of your political affiliation, would you trade Scalia for Bork?

Yes I would trade them. And his two views are both correct.

[Storebought]

Why not Bork and Scalia, if it weren't for Bork's age.

[PBrunsel]

Yes, I have a great deal of respect for Robert Bork. His book "The Tempting of America" is a fine analysis of how American foreign policy defines it's domestic agenda.

[Wakie]

In 1986 Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork for the Supreme Court.  Bork's nomination was blocked for a number of reasons (including his well-publicized beliefs that citizens are not guaranteed a right to privacy and that antitrust laws are unconstituitional).  After Bork's nomination was defeated Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia to the seat and he was easily confirmed.

Regardless of your political affiliation, would you trade Scalia for Bork?

Yes I would trade them. And his two views are both correct.

Are you suggesting that you would like to return to an age of legal monopolies?

[minionofmidas]

In that case, No way.
Now if we are talking Scalia...I don't care. Two dangerous madmen I wouldn't want to see anywhere near a sharp object, let alone a judicial bench.

[??????????]

In 1986 Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork for the Supreme Court.  Bork's nomination was blocked for a number of reasons (including his well-publicized beliefs that citizens are not guaranteed a right to privacy and that antitrust laws are unconstituitional).  After Bork's nomination was defeated Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia to the seat and he was easily confirmed.

Regardless of your political affiliation, would you trade Scalia for Bork?

Yes I would trade them. And his two views are both correct.

Are you suggesting that you would like to return to an age of legal monopolies?

America is about free trade and big business and capitalism. I know most socialist liberals can't admit that fact, but it remains true.

[Wakie]

In 1986 Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork for the Supreme Court.  Bork's nomination was blocked for a number of reasons (including his well-publicized beliefs that citizens are not guaranteed a right to privacy and that antitrust laws are unconstituitional).  After Bork's nomination was defeated Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia to the seat and he was easily confirmed.

Regardless of your political affiliation, would you trade Scalia for Bork?

Yes I would trade them. And his two views are both correct.

Are you suggesting that you would like to return to an age of legal monopolies?

America is about free trade and big business and capitalism. I know most socialist liberals can't admit that fact, but it remains true.

True, America is about free trade which requires capitalism for it to flourish.  America is NOT about big business, but we have no problem with it as long as it plays by the rules.  The problem with monopolies is that they hamper free trade and competition.

[??????????]

In 1986 Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork for the Supreme Court.  Bork's nomination was blocked for a number of reasons (including his well-publicized beliefs that citizens are not guaranteed a right to privacy and that antitrust laws are unconstituitional).  After Bork's nomination was defeated Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia to the seat and he was easily confirmed.

Regardless of your political affiliation, would you trade Scalia for Bork?

Yes I would trade them. And his two views are both correct.

Are you suggesting that you would like to return to an age of legal monopolies?

America is about free trade and big business and capitalism. I know most socialist liberals can't admit that fact, but it remains true.

True, America is about free trade which requires capitalism for it to flourish.  America is NOT about big business, but we have no problem with it as long as it plays by the rules.  The problem with monopolies is that they hamper free trade and competition.

Do you have a problem with Walmart?

[A18]

Walmart is not really a monopoly.

This country would suck without big business. I think anyone who bashes it is insane, especially when they do it on their computer, made by a big business, with all its individual parts, made by other big businesses.

[Nym90]

In 1986 Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. Bork's nomination was blocked for a number of reasons (including his well-publicized beliefs that citizens are not guaranteed a right to privacy and that antitrust laws are unconstituitional). After Bork's nomination was defeated Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia to the seat and he was easily confirmed.

Regardless of your political affiliation, would you trade Scalia for Bork?

Yes I would trade them. And his two views are both correct.

Are you suggesting that you would like to return to an age of legal monopolies?

America is about free trade and big business and capitalism. I know most socialist liberals can't admit that fact, but it remains true.

In my opinion, it's about preserving life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty and justice for all. That's what I think of when I think of my country, not business.

To the extent that big business, free trade, and capitalism help to achieve these ends, they are good, but they are only a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves. I would argue that they often hinder these goals. Profits are nothing without some sense of humanity behind them. A life lived in pursuit of monetary gain without spiritual and soulful enlightenment and without utmost concern for the welfare of others isn't worth living, in my humble opinion. But your mileage may differ.

[Nym90]

Scalia was nominated to the court in 1986 to replace William Rehnquist. He was Reagan's first choice for that bench. In 1987, upon the resignation of Justice Lewis Powell, Reagan nominated Bork, who was rejected. He then nominated Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed.

So the question should be; would you trade Kennedy for Bork?

That's what I thought. I was pretty sure that it was while I was in 3rd grade (1987). I remember the Bork hearings but didn't remember the exact details otherwise.

[??????????]

In 1986 Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. Bork's nomination was blocked for a number of reasons (including his well-publicized beliefs that citizens are not guaranteed a right to privacy and that antitrust laws are unconstituitional). After Bork's nomination was defeated Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia to the seat and he was easily confirmed.

Regardless of your political affiliation, would you trade Scalia for Bork?

Yes I would trade them. And his two views are both correct.

Are you suggesting that you would like to return to an age of legal monopolies?

America is about free trade and big business and capitalism. I know most socialist liberals can't admit that fact, but it remains true.

In my opinion, it's about preserving life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty and justice for all. That's what I think of when I think of my country, not business.

To the extent that big business, free trade, and capitalism help to achieve these ends, they are good, but they are only a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves. I would argue that they often hinder these goals. Profits are nothing without some sense of humanity behind them. A life lived in pursuit of monetary gain without spiritual and soulful enlightenment and without utmost concern for the welfare of others isn't worth living, in my humble opinion. But your mileage may differ.

I somewhat agree with you on that. I feel that charity and the like should be done by the private citizen in his/her own personal time. I don't feel a business/company should be responsible for giving charity or any such monetary giveaways unless of course the company wants to. On the individual level I agree with you but I feel the main goal of corporations is monetary gain and success. Many companies give millions of year to charity so I would disagree that companies in and of themselves hinder the poor and the like. This is America and almost any well balanced person can succeed in business/farming or whatever profession he/she chooses. I believe when the government puts up barriers to equal employment (ie Affirmative action), that is the actually hinderance to economic equality.

[A18]

Big business is part of libery.

[A18]

libery liberty