Rating: 
Summary: Outstanding
Review: This is one of the greatest books ever written on the decline of the institution of the Supreme Court. Bork goes into great detail about the downward spiral into Judicial Activism that the Supreme Court has been trending. Judges were not ment to be unelected kings who overturn the will of the people through their elected legislatures because they think they law ought to be a certain way. Justice Thomas in his dissent in Lawrence V Texas stated this principle when he said " I join Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is ... uncommonly silly." If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to "decide cases 'agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.' And, just like Justice Stewart, I "can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy," or as the Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions." I disagree with Justice Thomas's assertion that moral law in question is "silly" but even though he disagreed with the law, he understood that as a judge he did not have the power to legislate from the bench. Sadly this principle is held only by 3 of the 9 current Supreme Court Justices, and the majority of law school graduates today seem to believe that judicial activism is okay. Bork's book is a must read for anyone who loves the Constitution, and the institution that our founders set up.
Rating: 
Summary: Judge Bork would have made a great Justice- and they know it
Review: To make a long story short, the media did an first-rate hatchet job (one of the best of all time) in painting this balanced, admittedly conservative (judicial restraint etc.), and extremely fair minded jurist as some sort of crazy, backwards racist. Judge Bork has more legal acumen than several justices sitting on the Court right now. His clear and concise overview of substantive due process and the slippery slope of unwarranted judicial expansion that began with Lochner v. New York (where the Court overturned a state law which set hourly labor standards) to Griswold v. Conn., which created a "right to privacy" out of thin air, is basic Constitutional Law 101 that even non-lawyers or the general public should be familiar with. Bork makes in this book the same case that he was simply unable to fully articulate on TV and in the Senate confirmation hearings: The Constitution gives the power of the Judicial Branch to interpret, not to make the law. It sounds plain enough, but when you read this, you (should)realize that one of the all-time biggest media smears caused an injustice to be done to this wise judge. Bork is dry in spots here, but certainly not as dry as your average law school textbook or basic court opinion.
Rating:
Summary: Bork is well-spoken on this topic
Review: While I don't agree with everything that Robert Bork stands for, this book is an excellent read if you're interested in how the U.S. Constitution is interpreted by the courts. It's also shocking to see how most senators just don't get it (what I mean by that is that it's not a matter of disagreement, it's a matter of intellectual grasp). Bork presents an admirable defense of the rule of law, which I would agree is constantly under attack by people who want to politicize the judiciary.
Rating:
Summary: A Book whose time has come again...
Review: With the replacement of Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist imminent, Robert Bork's (the man who would-be
Supreme if not blocked/"borked" by Ted Kennedy, Joseph Biden & Co.)now classic study of the history of Supreme Court decision making will again enter Public glare.Key among Bork's topics is his expatiation on the infamous
DRED SCOTT decision of 1857(which declared black slaves property;unprotected by civil rights accorded human beings and Constitutionally deprived of ever being citizens of the United States). The perversion of "procedural" language, law, and OPINION into SUBSTANTIVE rights (& concomittant Federal/State/Personal-privacy obligations) begins here, and ends (Round I) with the American Civil War.The article is entitled: Chief Justice Taney and Dred Scott:The Court invites Civil War (pp.28-34). Americans of good faith are invited to peruse it. Round 2...focused on the infamous Roe v. Wade Abortion decision of January 1973... is equally imminent.The climax is uncertain. But those who do not understand the MENE,MENE,TEKEL,UPHARSIN implications of the last two Presidential elections, or believe the BLUE/RED divide is an excuse for homies of the Boston Globe, NYT,Time Magazine, and Maureen Dowd-clones to make hay b....ing editorially on Bill Mahr (or Fox) forums need to find a version of DANIEL sehr fast. President Bush may not be a President Lincoln but what may be coming may require "a man for the ages". Forget about THE FAITHFUl; read an important book that tries to explain "why every drop of blood drawn...shall be paid by another...[Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1865; Second Inaugural Address]10 stars...
| 
