I don't know about a "script", Reihan - but I do know that Bork wrote, in 1971:
"Constitutional protection should be accorded only to speech that is explicitly political. There is no basis for judicial intervention to protect any other form of expression, be it scientific, literary or that variety of expression we call obscene or pornographic."
I'm quite pleased this guy wasn't on the Supreme Court, and Nocera's suggestion that these views belong to a moderate conservative don't hold water. Do you believe these views are reasonable, Reihan? Would you want to see them on the Supreme Court?
I don't know about a "script", Reihan - but I do know that Bork wrote, in 1971:
"Constitutional protection should be accorded only to speech that is explicitly political. There is no basis for judicial intervention to protect any other form of expression, be it scientific, literary or that variety of expression we call obscene or pornographic."
I'm quite pleased this guy wasn't on the Supreme Court, and Nocera's suggestion that these views belong to a moderate conservative don't hold water. Do you believe these views are reasonable, Reihan? Would you want to see them on the Supreme Court?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse