| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 137.1 | Hi, this is Joe from Massachusetts | CURIE::RESKER | | Tue Aug 04 1987 15:58 | 7 |
| Ya right, so some special interest group has a dozen phone operators
with automatic dialers making a few hundred calls to express the
opinion for all of us.
What's the results of this "poll" supposed to prove?
tim
|
| 137.2 | ? | RDGENG::COTTON | | Wed Aug 05 1987 12:41 | 3 |
|
Excuse me, but what is this Bork nomination all about? I'm in England
and I haven't the foggiest idea what you're going on about.
|
| 137.3 | The Scoop | LABC::FRIEDMAN | | Wed Aug 05 1987 14:14 | 14 |
| Here's the story: There is a vacancy on the United States Supreme
Court. President Reagan has nominated someone who is a conservative
idealogue, Mr. Bork.
The most important issue relating to his nomination is the fact
that he is anti-abortion. It was the Supreme Court that legalized
abortion in the United States, as opposed to legislation. The
hope of conservatives is that with Bork and the other conservatives
Reagan has appointed, the abortion decision will be reversed.
Abortion is a controversial topic in the United States. Religious
fanatics liken it to murder and want to impose their narrow views
on everyone else.
|
| 137.4 | Addendum to Base Note | FDCV03::ROSS | | Wed Aug 05 1987 16:12 | 6 |
| As requested in WOMENNOTES and HUMAN_RELATIONS, the original poster
of this note added that people calling the phone number should
charge the call to their home phone, if calling from work.
Alan
|
| 137.5 | | CURIE::RESKER | | Wed Aug 05 1987 16:37 | 2 |
|
re.3 Thanks for your unbiased assessment aka. The Scoop.
|
| 137.6 | more on the hoopla | AMULET::FARRINGTON | statistically anomalous | Thu Aug 13 1987 14:15 | 20 |
| There were/are also some concerns on Bork's position on a few other
rights.
1. First Amendment - it is only to protect speech regarding
the federal government. Anything else may be censored.
2. Equality under the law - the Constitution did not specifically
grant it, so it is not protected.
Some others, based on his writings. Seemingly there is reason for
concern in the areas of privacy (its not in the Constitution so
the government may "invade" at will and whimsy) and religion (you
may like to pray, but some of "us" think its invasive...); the list
goes on.
Disregarding all the outraged rhetoric, there are legitimate reasons
to be concerned, and therefore closely examine, Mr. Bork, as opposed
to a mere rubber stamp of the President's choice.
Dwight
|