I believe he also said that the First Ammendment only applied to political speech-and it was limited, at that.
What the main concern was, I believe, his lack of belief in a right to privacy-apparently, he had expressed this while discussing a law that would have forbidden birth control to be sold-even to married couples.
Sorry, no cite at the moment.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
I believe he also said that the First Ammendment only applied to political speech-and it was limited, at that.
[quote]
Having read two books by Bork, I very much doubt this. There was a terrible mud-slinging campaign aganist him. I suspect the above statement is just left-over mud,
However, Bork did clearly say that he felt that certain forms of objectionable speech could be prohibited, such as obscenity. That is, he felt that the first amendment was less than absolute.
There’s no doubt at all the he would have voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. Obviously this was a very important consideration to his opponents.
If it ever came up, he might even have voted the same way on Griswold v. Conn., as Guin suggsts. That’s of no practical importance, because no state would ban the use birth control.
I seem to recall an audiotape of Bork talking to a schoolgirl, explaining how some precedent was “wrong” so he could vote to overturn it. The tape itself was of no particular import, IIRC. It was almost a last straw, and just made him look a little weider, a little more hypocritical.
Anybody else remember this tape, that played at his hearing? Where’d it come from?