Skip to content

Robert Bork And the Anti-Private Property “Conservatives”

In the discussion on conservative talk radio regarding who should replace U.S. Supreme Bureaucrat Anthony Kennedy, some people have mentioned their beloved conservative judicial hero Judge Robert Bork. Thank goodness Bork was voted down by the U.S. Senate — he got “Borked.”

Bork was a communitarian, a majoritarian who believed that if the majority of the community felt “anguished” by something that private people were doing in the privacy of their own home (their own private property), behavior that was consensual and not harming others, then the community had a right to legislate against such private behavior (and sic the government police after the sinful wrongdoers).

In other words, he was against private property rights, in the name of imposing a subjective moral view of behaviors enforced by the government. And enforced by the government police, of course. It is difficult to find any good items on the Internet regarding these views of his, but I know it to be the case, as I was glued to his confirmation hearings every day when he was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987.

Bork believed there was no right to privacy, and he stated arrogantly that the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was an inconvenient “inkblot.” (However, now that I see that the Supreme Bureaucrats are all bad, the leftists are against the rights of the individual and private property, and the so-called “conservatives” are also against the rights of the individual and private property. So, it doesn’t really matter anymore. And is there any possibility that Trump would nominate a Judge Napolitano? Don’t. Make. Me. Laugh.)

So, if Bork were still living and had still been a judge these days, if he were consistent with his anti-private property and majoritarian-communitarian views, he would have to uphold cases such as transgender bathroom bills or laws, and other “civil rights” legislation in which the enforcement of such crapola violates private property, in the name of preventing private discrimination from “anguishing” the community. Am I wrong about this?

Published inUncategorized