Bork’s Supreme Court Nomination

I have listened to all of the testimony to date hearing the pros and cons of the confirmation of Bork and have drawn two conclusions: Bork is not a monster and Bork should not be confirmed as a Supreme Court justice. There are at least two reasons why not.

First, Bork clearly and unambiguously stated in his testimony that he could find no basis in the Constitution for a “generalized right to privacy.” The word is not explicitly used so the concept was not the framers’ intent. He is wrong. I submit that the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments make clear the notion of the sanctity of one’s home, property, liberty, thoughts and personal actions not impinging on those of other citizens; not to mention a substantial body of precedent since then. The right to privacy is the linchpin of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This country was born in a blood bath to defend the very principle which Bork asserts to be without constitutional foundation. Is he kidding?

Second, he is morally blind--actions without consequences. He sincerely (I assume) believes himself to be an impassive agent interpreting constitutional law in a vacuum. He may have been telling the truth when he said that it was the “reasoning” and not the result to which he objected in the case voiding a state law effectively banning contraception. I would point out that no matter his claimed judicial indifference toward contraception, he has damned contraception just the same.

His protestations of impartiality are specious. President Reagan used ideology in nominating him; the Senate must judge ideology in rejecting the nomination.

JEFF GOODWIN

Beverly Hills