• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Sometimes, the Senate gets it right....

Part of me wonders if 1980s Bork would be too liberal for today's conservatives.
 
What dork boy Bork fails to realize is that prostitution is not addressed at all in the constitution, and that there is, therefore, no over-riding constitutional need to regulate it as a transaction between consenting adults.

There is an over-ridng public concern to control pimping and human trafficing as a form of slavery, and to address health concerns. Family law needs to address the harm that one spouse's activities with prostitutes might do to the family, financially and health-wise.

Otherwise, it is just an imposition of a set of subjective morals on people who would otherwise not observe them.
 
Hey, you can't argue with solid constitutional law reasoning like this:

"It depends on the elite class's opinion," he [Bork] told Newsmax. If the American elite would prefer prostitution to be decriminalized nationally, federal judges will go along "even if the majority of the people are against it, and even though there is nothing in the Constitution about it."
Click to expand...

sounds like some is still bitter about not being elite enough to join their club.
 
cwalner said:
Hey, you can't argue with solid constitutional law reasoning like this:

"It depends on the elite class's opinion," he [Bork] told Newsmax. If the American elite would prefer prostitution to be decriminalized nationally, federal judges will go along "even if the majority of the people are against it, and even though there is nothing in the Constitution about it."
Click to expand...

sounds like some is still bitter about not being elite enough to join their club.
Click to expand...


It also sounds like an accurate description of the state of reality. :(
 
Beerina said:
It also sounds like an accurate description of the state of reality. :(
Click to expand...

Not really, since as far as federal law is concerned, prostitution currently is de-criminilized (ie prostitution is not a federal crime). This is one of the things that is currently left to the states. For federal law to override the states right to criminalize it would require either an amendment to the US constitution or a ruling by the SCOTUS that such laws violate what is already in the US constitution (which is currently possibly happening in Canada, which another thread is discussing).

Either would take a lot more than some nebulous 'elites' to decide to change things by fiat.
 
Last edited:
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Newsmax? On a skeptics forum?
Click to expand...

why not?

yes, reading the link clearly shows the bias of Newsmax. But look at the title/tone of the OP compared to the tone of the link.

The Newsmax link is extolling the virtues of Bork's position, while the title of this thread is 'Sometimes, the Senate gets it right', which is clearly a reference to the decision not to confirm him for the SCOTUS.

In other words, the OP makes it clear that he/she does not agree with the position expressed in the link, so I can only assume it was used in an attempt to highlight Bork's wingnuttery.

Therefore, the link seems very appropriate, even on a Skeptic's forum.
 
XBoxWarrior said:
Newsmax?

/really
//really really
///really real for sure?
Click to expand...

The link contains enough raw fact to form an opinion about Borks suitablity for the SCOTUS. My thread title and OP should have provided evidence that my opinion differs substantially from that presented in the source. I would have expected that fact to shield me from any rational assault on my selection of sources. I was right.
 
I like the way Bork, a former Federal Judge and current law professor, somehow exempts himself from the "elite."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom