Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Just called, and asked whether there was a time limit; apparently
    it's open-ended (at least until the Bork nomination is squashed,
    whoops, I meant to say decided :-)
    
    Chuck

    I called a few minutes ago, and got a recorded message about what
    meetings they're having.  Sure this is right, or is this what you're
    supposed to get?
    
    Elizabeth
    

    
    
    I just called now.  Someone from the senate judiciary commitee
    answered, so the recording must be in place when no-one is there
    to answer the phone.  Keep calling!
    

    re .2:
    
    Liberal bias in Womannotes?  A bias in Womannotes?  You must have
    the wrong file...   ;-)
    

    
    They're there now. They ask you what state you're from and how you'd
    like to vote.
    
    E.

    I called this morning.  Thanks for sharing this opportunity.  
    
    When I called, the woman I spoke with asked what state I was from
    and when I told her I was from Mass., she commented that they have
    received a great volume of call from Mass., and asked if there was
    some televised announcement.  I told her that I had heard about it
    through the company I worked for.  However, I declined to mention
    the company name when asked.  Not sure if this might fall under
    "solicitation" or if someone would be offended or such (yes - it's
    possible!) and I generally wanted to protect DEC and the Notesfile.
    
    But it felt real good to *participate* in the government!  
    
    Sheila
    

   Do call!  Especially from other states (the woman who answered
   seemed not to be very surprised that I was calling from
   Massachusetts).
   	
   						=maggie

    also, I believe the number is open in the evenings....
    
    if anyone has the exact scoop (I have a pretty general idea) on
    facts and figures about Judge Bork's track record, intentions, and
    how he will impact the position if he is nominated and selected,
    I would appreciate it.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    Gee, isn't this swell!  
    
    Just pick up the phone and you can participate in government! Easy
    and fun too!
    
    Anybody have any idea what the people on the other end of the line
    intend to do with the statistics they cull from your calls?
    
    If you want to know about Judge Bork's "track record" it is a matter
    of public record, so do some research before you pick up the phone!
    Or is that just too inconvienient?
    
    Want to participate in government?  I think it highly laudable.
    Please do it intelligently.
    
    Don't wait until your government asks you to do it!

    Does anyone besides me have a little film projecter in a small corner
    of their head, showing the people at the end of the phone line -
    
    Answering the phone
    Getting your input
    Writing it down
    Putting it in the shredder
    Answering the next call
    Getting their input
    Writing it down
    Putting it in the.....
    
    
    etc.
    
    ???
    
    Or is it just me?
    
    :-)   :-(
    
    Dawn
    

re: .7
> But it felt real good to *participate* in the government!  

    Yes indeedy it does. And don't stop now. Write letters, make phone
    calls, join committees, and definitely VOTE when the time comes. You
    *can* make a difference (do I sound like a high school civics class, or
    what?).

    It's especially hard for some of us (more liberal folk) here in Mass to
    get excited about writing or phoning because our senators and most of
    our representatives think the way we do. Nonetheless, they need
    reminders.

re: .12
> Answering the phone/Getting your input/Writing it down/Putting it in
> the shredder/Answering the phone...

    I think we're ok on this one. Isn't the judiciary committee run by
    Joseph Biden? He's at least a Democrat (though I'm not sure exactly
    where he sits on the liberal/conservative scale) and he's running for
    president, so he's got to be sensitive to the public's desires. *We* are
    the public, so we have to let him know what we think. (And yes, even if
    you think Bork is great, you should let the committee know [but don't
    hurry].)

    Biden has apparently put off the hearings on Bork until the fall (in
    October?). He's been accused of partisanship, because hearings on
    Justices are usually begun much sooner than that.  In any case, there's
    time to make your beliefs heard, but don't wait.

    my, .11, we seem to be dipping the sharpened barb of wit in sarcasm,
    don't we?
    
    as for the responses, from what I've heard, the conservatives are
    lauding the fact that only one out of every six or seven of the
    responders *in conservative areas* are placing their votes in the
    "disfavor" box.  This was released by the judiciary folks at the
    end of last week.  Their failure to talk about a greater sample,
    or the *liberal areas*, leads me to believe that a difference is
    being made by our votes.  BTW, this number has been posted by friends
    of mine to conferences such as women.net (on the Usenet), and will
    probably stray into many other-net mailing lists (that's where I
    got it from) in the near future.
    
    -Jody
    

    Please see this week's _New_Yorker_ magazine for analysis of Bork's
    opinions about individual privacy, what the framers of the
    consititution meant, and law.
    
    What a guy.  He opposed states outlawing racist business practices,
    yet he supported states prohibiting use of contraceptives.  The first
    he declares as a tyranny of the majority.  And what's the second?
    "Original framers" or whatever euphemism they're trying to soften
    his image with, it makes no difference: Bork will rule to support
    his own morality.
    
    I urge you to read it.  _The_New_Yorker_ felt strongly enough about
    it to make it the sole topic of "Around Town".  And maybe you'll
    call.

>    "Original framers" or whatever euphemism they're trying to soften
>    his image with, it makes no difference: Bork will rule to support
>    his own morality.

    It's called "original intent". They want to interpret constitutional
    issues based on what the framers of the constitution intended instead
    of interpreting the constitution in the context of our own time.

    Think of the framers: a fairly homogeneous group of mostly well-to-do
    white men, many of whom owned slaves. So, if you use their original
    intentions to interpret the constitution, what do you think you'll get?
    Could that be why Bork doesn't want the government to "interfere" in
    issues based on sex or race? 

    I suppose there's some logic to the doctrine, but not enough. If one
    really believes that the framers were intelligent and planned ahead,
    then their "original intent" might have been that we interpret the
    constitution in our own context, allowing for changes over time.
    (That's kind of like writing programs with subroutines to call, so that
    different parameters can be used depending on the situation.) After
    all, who knows all of what they all thought? We can't have a complete
    record, and if something important is missing, the interpretation may
    well be wrong.


    Anyway, I called yesterday morning, and it's painless.  I forgot to ask
    the woman who answered how the calls were going.  If anyone asks,
    please post the response.

    					-- hs

    re .16 (original intent):
    
    Bill Moyers did a series this year about the Constitution called
    "In Search of the Constitution" which consisted of 10 interviews
    with scholars, judges, etc. (one of the guests was Judge Bork)
    One interview was with a man who is an American and is a professor
    of law at either Cambridge or Oxford University.
    
    His comments on "original intent" I thought were very good. He said
    that imagine a man giving advise to his son, all he says is "Always
    do the honorable thing". Years later, the father has died, and the son 
    wants to remain true to his father. It would be ridiculous for the son
    to start rummaging all through his father's writings trying to
    determine exactly how he defined "honorable".
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
     

    Some of Judge Bork's views (at least the ones I can remember):
                 
    The following represent views that Bork has expressed on recent
    supreme court decisions (i.e., ones that he does not agree with):
    
     -  He's against legalized contraception - even for married couples.
     -  He's against one man-one vote.
     -  He's against the voting rights act
     -  He's against separation of church and state
     -  He's for racially restricted convenants
     -  He's for the sterilization of criminals
     -  He's for the prior restraint of freedom of the press
    
    
    It seems to me that any one of these fundamental constitutional
    issues would give cause to reject Bork.  The Senate has rejected
    presidential nominees for the court 26 times since the constitution
    was written, including one of the framers of the constitution,
    nominated by George Washington.  Considering how infrequently the 
    chance comes to name a judge, this is a lot of times!
    
    Also, one previous noter said that the framers of the constitution
    were  all similar types (paraphrasing), actually, they were considered
    radicals!

    
    
    re.18
    
    I would like to see some documented proof of your charges relating
    to what Judge Bork is "for" and "against".
    
    Can you supply it?
    

    re .18
    
    Strictly speaking, I'm not sure that Bork is against or for all the items
    you listed. I think it might be more accurate to say that he says
    no there is no consitutional barrier to a state enacting laws that prohibit
    such things... as in: he feels that a state is not prevented by
    the constitution of the US from enacting a law that prohibits
    the sale of contraceptives to married couples, etc...
    
    I still don't want him on the Supreme Court.
    
    	bruce

Most of the information I have concerning Judge Bork comes from the
New Yorker "editorial" that Lisa mentioned in a previous note.
(I could make copies of it if you haven't seen it.  It's good reading.)

The New Yorker discussed his judicial philosophy from his writings,
especially a review article he did for (from memory) the Indiana
Law Review in 1971.

In his publications, Judge Bork has argued against many of the positions
held by the current Supreme Court.  He also appears to disbelieve in
"rights" that are held by the the people.  Thus, he would not stand
in the way of legislation that would be declared unconstitutional today.

I.e., if a state were to pass a law saying that sexual intercourse
was illegal unless the man was on top, Judge Bork would say that that
that is the perogative of the state, and if you don't like it, elect
some congressfolk with more eclectic tastes.

Martin.

    
    	As the base note is like 2 weeks old, is the phone no.
    	 still good?  Are they still taking calls??
    
    
    				-Rich

    Reply to  .19, .20
    
    See Wednesday, Aug 12 Boston Globe, page 83.  There is almost verbatim
    the list I wrote, as given by Senator Biden.
    

    Make that .22 is probably correct.  I will, if you'd like, type
    in the entire article so you can judge for yourself.  (pun intended)
    
    He is very much against individual rights. 

The entire article is probably over 4,000 words.  Some out of context
quotes:  [quotation marks are the New Yorker's, *** my ellipses, ...
the New Yorker's; [] mark my additions]:

   "Every clash between a minority claiming freedom and a majority claiming
   power to regulate involves a choice between ... gratifications,"
   and "There is no principled way to decide that one man's gratifications
   are more deserving of respect than another's or that one form of
   gratification is more worthy than another." ***

   *** the notion that "rights ... inhere in humans," which Bork dismisses
   as some new, modish rhetorical development, ...
   
   The Constitution was drafted with three clear aims *** and to protect
   precisely the individula rights of citizens agains tmajoritarian
   intrusion and coercion by the State.  That the framers regarded these
   rights as inhering in the individual, and not as in any sense "derived,"
   either from any document or from any trivial, utilitarian "governmental
   process," is clear, and not just from the Bill of Rights -- which
   Judge Bork, in the same article [Indiana Law Journal, fall 1971],
   brushes aside as a "hastily drafted document upon which little thought
   was expended."  It was thoroughly thought out again, after the Civil
   War, when the Fourteenth Amendment exentded the core of the Bill
   of Rights, along with due process and equal protection, to the citizens
   of all the states.  But Bork treats this amendment rather dismissively
   as well, speaking of the "value choice (or, perhaps more accurately,
   the value impulse) of the Fourteenth Amendment."  He writes of the
   "men who put the amendment in the Constitution" that "many or most
   of them had not even thought the matter through."
   
   "Courts must accept any value choice the legislature makes unless
   it clearly runs contrary to a choice made in the framing of the
   Constitution," Bork writes.  And: "It follows, of course, that broad
   areas of constitutional law ought to be reformulated."

Enough for now.

Martin.

   
   
   
   

    I wrote every person on the Judiciary committee stating my opposition
    to Bork.  I got this letter back (so far the only one) from Humphrey
    in NH (who represents [if someone whose views are the total antithesis 
    of mine can represent] me.)
    
    "Dear Mrs. Handel:
    
    Thank you for contacting me regarding Judge Robert H. Bork.  I
    appreciate the opportunity to respond.
    
    I believe that Judge Bork will make an excellent addition to the
    Supreme Court.  Judge Bork's credentials and judicial experience
    are extensive.  The record shows that Judge Bork has a sound,
    consistent and wellreasoned approach to constitutional and statutory
    issues.  His judicial philosophy is based on neutral principles
    of constitutional law, rather than on politics or ideology.  Liberal
    characterizations of Judge Bork's record as "extremist" or doctrinaire
    are invalid from any objective standpoint.  It is my hope that the
    Judiciary Committee will act with dispatch in considering Judge
    Bork's nomination.  The longer the Supreme Court is short-handed,
    the longer important judicial decisions will be delayed.
    
    Again, thank you for contacting me.  I appreciate being apprised
    of your views.
    
    With warmest regards, I am
    
    Sincerely yours,
    
    Gordon J. Humphrey, USS"
    
    ===========================================
    
    This is the second letter I've received from Humphrey, and both
    had to do with the Supreme Court - the first was about Rehnquist.
    Neither time did he state that he would take my views into
    consideration.  That's wrong.  I believe that the elected officials
    should take into consideration what the predominant view of their
    electorate is - not what they themselves necessarily believe.  They
    are there to REPRESENT the views and protect the views of their
    constituencies, not their own political goals or what the President
    necessarily wants.    
    
    Do you think elected officials should take into consideration the
    viewpoints of their electorate or of the President? (or their own
    views)
    
    

re: .26:
    Do you think elected officials should take into consideration the
    viewpoints of their electorate or of the President?

Only if they want to be re-elected.  You (and your neighbours) elected
Sen. Humphrey to *represent* you, not to bow to your every whim.
If you don't like what he's doing, get out the vote against him next
time around.

Martin.

    Or petition for recall (if that's legal in NH, and I think it
    is)!
    
    						=maggie

    As a matter of fact, I have voted against Humphrey, as well as Sununu,
    unfortunately, we lost.  Maybe next time - I will definitely do
    my part to defeat him!
    
    

    Re .26:
    
    I would like to also write to the judiciary committee on my opposition
    to Bork.  Could you supply us with the "mailing list" as well as
    your letter (for ideas, not to duplicate exactly).  Thanks,
    
    -Tracy
    

    
    
    re 18
    if he's that bad....there's no way we can avoid his selecction.
    
    most of the noters and deccies and conservaatives and republicans
    will see to it that he keeps this country great by calling FOR his
    appointment.
    
    what a country.
    

    re .26:
    
    > Do you think elected officials should take into consideration the
    > viewpoints of their electorate or of the President? (or their own
    > views)
    
    Congressional Representatives should represent the will of the people
    regardless of their own views (up to a point)
    
    Senators should act according to the famous charge by Edmund Burke,
    that he owes his constituency not only his industry but also his
    judgement, and he betrays them if he sacrifices the latter to their
    opinion.

    This is the reason for the two and six year terms.
    
    I do think Senators should take the opinions of his constituency
    under consideration, but I don't think that they should blindly follow
    the will of the majority. 
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    For those of you in Massachusetts, I called Senators Kennedy and
    Kerry yesterday to see what their stand on Bork is, and how they
    intend to vote.  I was told that Senator Kennedy is against the
    confirmation, and I expressed my agreement with this position so
    they would have a record of it.  I was surprised to find that the
    woman who answered in Senator Kerry's office hemmed and hawed a
    few times before giving me a very non-commital answer on Kerry's
    position.  She said that he had not decided, but had some questions
    about Bork's role in the firing of Cox (?).  I expressed my opinion
    to her, and I have followed that up with a letter.
    
    Just thought that some of you folks may want to do something to
    help Kerry make up his mind, and express your opinion to both of
    our senators.
    
    Cathy
    

    Can you post Kerry's phone number, Cathy?
    
    						=maggie

       re .34:
       
       John or Faulkner?
       
       --Mr Topaz

    John, of course.  (Actually, I thought of re-editing it to "Sen.
    Kerry" just to shortstop a response like yours, Don, but I was too
    lazy.  That'll teach me! ;')

    Senator John F. Kerry
    
    203 John F. Kennedy Bldg.
    Boston, MA   02203
    617-565-8519
    
    or 
    
    Russell Senate Office Bldg.
    Washington, D.C.  20515

    If anyone is still skeptical as to how they feel on Bork's 
    nomination to the Supreme Court, the following quotes are 
    from a full-page article in the Boston Globe (pg. 13, 
    Tuesday, Sept. 8, 1987):

    "According to Bork, women can be forced to choose between 
    being sterilized and losing their jobs...

    "[If Judge Bork is confirmed to the Supreme Court] a state 
    can declare the use of birth control illegal and invade your 
    privacy to enforce the law...

    "[If Judge Bork is confirmed to the Supreme Court] you wouldn't
    even be protected against sexual harassment at work (Robert
    Bork doesn't believe such coercion is 'discriminatory').

    "[If Judge Bork is confirmed to the Supreme Court] a state 
    could ban both birth control and abortion - throwing women
    back to the age when pregnancy was, in effect, compulsory and
    women risked their lives to terminate pregnancy."

    The above-quoted article was placed by the National Abortion
    Rights Action League.  The article also informs readers that 
    if they feel Bork should be rejected as a Supreme Court Justice,
    they should write to their senators stating this view.
    (Pre-written letters are included in the Globe, they need only 
    be cut out, signed, and mailed.)

    re .38:
    
    While I object to Bork's nomination, I think that most of the
    statements in that advertisement are ludicrous. The "if-then" 
    phrasing is what I protest. Why can't they just say "Bork's opinion
    is:..."?
    
    It was not an article, it was a paid political advertisement, as
    biased and distorted as the article about the "Family Security Act".
    
    It bothers me that the plain truth is not believed to be sufficient,
    that it must be embellished and twisted in such a way as to insure
    opposition.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    .0
    
    The line is still working. I just started reading this file again
    and found out about the phone number yesterday. I called and they
    asked what state I was from and how I felt about the nomination.
    And that was it..... of course, I do wonder how they will use this
    info (shredder fodder, etc) and how valid it will be, since one
    person/group could call over and over again.
    
    But, it is kinda neat to know about ways of giving input into the
    system!
    
    Thanks for posting the number!
    
    janet b.

The following  article, reprinted without permission, appeared in today's Boston
Globe.  It discusses Judge Bork's 1983 position on a case involving a father's 
visitation rights after a divorce.



                    "Let the record show the real Judge Bork"

                          Ellen Goodman - Sept. 10, 1987
                          

Robert  Bork is bound to have trouble living up to  his  billing.    Portly,
scruffy around the edges, no matinee idol, the nominee for the Supreme Court
is finally going to appear in the Senate chambers on Tuesday to  take up his
starring role.

Will he  play  the  brilliant,  charming,  judicial moderate scripted by his
White House fans?    Is  he likely to slip into the role of raging rightwing
radical portrayed by his enemies?

The dueling previews of  Bork have led to a certain opening-night excitement
about the confirmation hearings.   Joe  Biden,  committee chairman and a man
with his own role to play as presidential candidate, predicts that Bork will
be a "beared Ollie North," reaching for  a nationwide standing ovation and a
place of honor on a T-shirt.

But however Bork plays to his audience (the Senate  in  the  front  row, the
public  in the TV balcony), we dont't judge a judge  by  his  star  quality.
Judges leave a paper trail, a track record of opinions that tell, literally,
where they are coming from.

So when you hear the clever dialogue, the Q and A, the lines from the Senate
floor, think about his role in the dramas of our private lives.  Think about
the Franz family.

In 1976,  after  eight  years  of marriage and three children, William Franz
became a divorced  father  with  visitation  rights.    Five year later, his
ex-wife went into hiding  with  her  new  husband  under the Federal Witness
Program.  Franz was effectively  and  permanently cut off from his children.
He sued to get his visitation  rights back, and eventually that suit went up
to the three-member Court of Appeals in Washington.

As sometimes happens, messy family stories make good law for the rest of us,
and Franz won his case.  The majority  ruled  that severing the ties between
parent  and  child  without  their  participation  and consent violated  the
constitutional right to privacy.

But Bork wasn't part of the majority.  Bork dissented.    He  disagreed that
there  was  a  right  to  "so  tenuous  a  relationship as visitation  by  a
noncustodial parent."

Yes,  Bork  said, the state had an interest in maintaining families and  the
institution  of  marriage.  But the same could not "be said of broken  homes
and dissolved marriages."

Indeed, he wrote,  protecting  the relationship after divorce could have the
tendency "further to undermine  the  institution of the intact marriage." He
said this in 1983 when there was one divorce for every two marraiges.

The point is not Bork's ease in dispensing with such "tenuous" relationships
as those of parent and child.  Nor is it his notion that protecting the bond
of noncustodial parent and child would loosen  the  bond  of  marriage.  His
co-judges called this "sufficiently ludicrous as to merit no rebuttal".

But the Franz case is just one study of Bork's view that the only legitimate
guide through the Constitution is one that divines the  original  intent  of
the  framers, that the only rights protected by the Constitution  are  those
specifically  named.   It underscores his insistence over decades that there
is no right to privacy.

What would the men who wrote the Constitution, and later drew up the Bill of
Rights, say about  a  world  in which more families are dissolved by divorce
than death?  We'd  need  a  psychic  to  answer that.  They never thought to
specifically shelter family relationships from  the  state.   They assumed a
level of personal liberty that we have to protect.

The "right to privacy" is not  just a code phrase for the right to abortion,
although it has seemed that way during  the long summer previews to the Bork
show.  If indeed there is no right  to privacy, as Bork says, then the state
has the power to prohibit OR enforce abortion.

But the privacy issue itself goes beyond abortion, beyond  even the right to
use  birth  control  in  your  own  home,  beyond  the  freedom  from  state
sterilization  - all rulings Bork disagrees with.  It goes straight  to  the
heart of familial descisions about the upbringing of their children, and the
right of noncustodial parents to see those children.

When  Bork  enters  the  scene from stage right - far right - it  isn't  his
presentation  that  matters as much as his point of view.  Don't just follow
the new script.  Read the old record."

    After outlawing abortion, he might even go after the right to divorce
    one's spouse.

    re .42:
    
    Bork cannot outlaw abortion.
    
    He cannot "go after" the "right" to divorce one's spouse.
    
    He may be of the opinion that the States may Constitutionally regulate
    these activities.
    
    As I've said before, I don't like Bork, and do not want to see him
    on the Supreme Court, but I think some are getting a little carried
    away in the powers they ascribe to the man.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    It is not his personal weight that must concern us, but rather the
    balance on the court that his weight would destroy for *many* *years*.
    
    It was precarious enough before Powell's retirement; we need a moderate
    to replace him, not a reactionary.
    
    						=maggie

    "The issue that most exercises Bork's critics is abortion, a 
    litmus test in the minds of many who oppose his nomination.
    At first blush, there is no ambiguity in Bork's position.
    He has written, and still says, that "Roe v. Wade", the 1973
    Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, was "wrongly
    decided, an unconstitutional decision, a serious and wholly
    unjustifiable usurpation of state legislative authority."
    Or, as Bork has put it in laymen's terms, "I don't think
    abortion is any of the Court's business. I just don't think
    there is anything in the Constitution about it."
        A recent survey of American jurists found that only 44%
    believe "Roe" was correctly decided. (Bork's personal view
    of abortion is unknown. But he may have telegraphed it when he
    testified...*against* the "Human Life" bill, a proposal that
    would have made abortion murder by defining life as beginning at
    conception.) "
    
    from US News & World Report, Sept. 14, 1987  page 20

re:; .33 (Cathy)>


    For those of you in Massachusetts, I called Senators Kennedy and
    Kerry yesterday to see what their stand on Bork is, and how they
    intend to vote.  I was told that Senator Kennedy is against the
    confirmation, and I expressed my agreement with this position so
    they would have a record of it.  I was surprised to find that the
    woman who answered in Senator Kerry's office hemmed and hawed a
    few times before giving me a very non-commital answer on Kerry's
    position.  She said that he had not decided, but had some questions
>>>    about Bork's role in the firing of Cox (?).  I expressed my opinion
    to her, and I have followed that up with a letter.



The comment on the firing of Cox refers to Archibald Cox.

Archibald Cox was the special prosecutor in the Justice Department 
investigating the WATERGATE break-in.  As special prosecutor he went 
to court to supeona (sp) the WATERGATE TAPES.

Nixon ordered his Attorney General (Elliot Richardson) to fire COX; he 
refused.  He then ordered (Ruckelshaus(SP) to fire Cox, he too 
refused.  Both these men resigned over the incident.  This incident 
has been referred to as the Saturday Night Massacre.

What does this have to do with BORK you ask?

Guess who was #3 in the Justice Department at the time and actually 
DID THE FIRING.

BTW, the firing of the Special Prosecutor was prevented by Federal law 
establishing the position.  BORK concluded that the law did not have 
effect given that he was following a direct order by the President.
There is obviously more to this but I think this gives a fair 
accounting.

- Howard

    The Sat. night thing is one of the things that bothers me
    about Bork. He seems to interept the law according to his
    whims at the time-or what he thinks. He disregards what doesn't
    suit him.
    
    Constitutional question -if appointed can he be removed?
    

    He can be removed via the impeachment process...Abe Fortas resigned
    rather than submit to impeachment (or so it was said).
    
    I'd rather he were never appointed!
    						=maggie

The so called "federal law" establishing the special prosecutor was
not passed by congress.  It was an edict of the Justice Department
with the force of law, just like other rulings from the various other
agencies (FAA, OSHA, etc).   Just like Congress can change its mind and
repeal a law, so can the executive branch with an executive-branch order.

The president runs the executive branch, delegating authority to the heads
of the agancies as he sees fit.  So the president is the ultimate head
of every agency.  So the president can cause any agency ruling to be
withdrawn.

When Nixon ordered Cox removed, he was implicitly repealing the "law" that
created the office, or at least amending it.  Bork's position is that
Nixon had every right to do this.

   "She was given a good choice of losing her job or selecting the
    sterlization and she was happy to select the sterlization." 
    
    "Reckless driving and pornographic speech are similar"
    "But Judge Bork, there is no constitutional freedm for driving,
    speech is protected by 2nd ammendment" 
    
    Paraphrased from Robert Bork.
    
    I wonder if we could convince few Senators to give Bork a choice
    between not getting confirmed or getting sterlized.  I bet he would
    be thrilled with the "choice".
    
- Vikas

    RE: .50
    
    	I believe that the facts behind the first quote would help to
    	clarify how that sentence was meant. Tell me, what was her third
    	choice? That in itself may prove interesting.
    

    
    	In general it seems that debate will help in decisions only if
    that debate is carried out in a meaningful and constructive way.
    The point is accurate and documented facts will add constructively
    to any debate. Personal opinion can also be of value if said opinion
    is represented as a personal view and NOT presented as fact. The
    kind of hysterics that can be found in this file does NOTHING to
    further intelligent debate. I would no more want to see a person
    approved for the supreme court based on blind emotion as see them
    not approved on that same basis. 
    	With regard to expressing opinion to ones senator, assuming
    none of us are experts in constitutional law, should our views as
    to the competence of a supreme court judge really have a bearing
    on the outcome of the hearings?
    
    					Aj 
    

    The interesting thing was that she had NO third choice.
    
    She could be sterilized so that she would not produce any
    defective children despite working in a chemically dangerous
    environment, or she could be fired from that job.  She was
    not given the choice of transferring to a job in another
    part of the same company.
    
    Bork indicated (and I was watching) that he was quite happy
    with this situation.
    
    						Ann B.

>< Note 417.53 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." >
>                          -< A little clarification >-
>
>    The interesting thing was that she had NO third choice.

    That is not what I read in the Boston Globe this Sunday.
    
>    She was
>    not given the choice of transferring to a job in another
>    part of the same company.

    As the Boston Globe printed it, she had the choice of taking a lower
    paying job in another part of the plant.
    
>    Bork indicated (and I was watching) that he was quite happy
>    with this situation.

    While the situation is certainly not a pleasant one for the person losing
    her job, I also find the final disposition of the case satisfactory.
    Rather than finding fault with the decision, why don't you enlighten us
    as to what you would have done?
    
    I have watched this topic with great interest.  I of course expected that
    this notesfile would be the most militant with respect to stopping Bork's
    nomination.  What I find most interesting though is the great amount of
    DISinformation that gets promoted here.  I have heard much from Bork's
    detractors, almost all of it "quotes" that sound absolutely preposterous
    when taken out of context.  This sterilization issue is a perfect case.
    When all of the information is taken into account, I feel that the
    decision was justified.
    
    Mark Sawyer

    
    Am I to understand (Mr. Sawyer) that you think it's justifiable
    for a woman to either get sterilized or take a cut in pay?  
    How would you feel if faced with the same choice?
    
    With regard to your question about what would you do instead
    of giving the women workers that "choice"... DEC *was* faced with
    a similar situation recently in Hudson.  (See Associated Press
    story Wed., 24-December-1986.)  A DEC Study found a high
    rate of miscarriages among women working with certain chemicals
    in the production of chips.  DEC voluntarily offered to transfer
    any woman who was concerned about future pregnancies.... no
    cut in pay, no sterilization.  
    
    Justine
                                             

>< Note 417.55 by PNEUMA::SULLIVAN >
>                   -< and if the (O.R.) tables were turned >-
>
>    Am I to understand (Mr. Sawyer) that you think it's justifiable
>    for a woman to either get sterilized or take a cut in pay?  

    If the alternative is that of birth defects or other possible
    complications due to the pregnancy then my answer is yes.
    
    Regarding the cut in pay:  If there are no other positions available at
    her present pay-scale, for which she is qualified or could be trained
    for, then I guess that's just life.  I'm sure that you are not advocating
    anything other than "equal pay for equal work".  I just wouldn't expect
    to find that kind of thing in this notesfile.  :-)

>    How would you feel if faced with the same choice?

    I'm sure that I would feel very badly.  What else can I say ???
    
    RE:  DEC's similar problem and its solution
    
    DEC is a very large company with many types of jobs in many locations.
    I'm sure that although it 'cost' DEC to place these women in other jobs,
    it was probably very feasible given the number of job opportunities
    available within the DEC community.  Can you say that about the company
    that made these women chose between sterilization or quitting ???
    

    
    RE: .55 etc		Unfortunately, most companies just do not treat
    			their people as well as DEC treats us (my opinion).
    
    		I don't think the issue was either get sterilized or
    		take a cut in pay. If my facts are right, the issue
    		was whether or not a woman could consent to sterilization
    		if she wanted to continue working in a job that had
    		been linked to causing birth defects. Bork stated that
    		he felt that a woman should be allowed to make this
    		decision. 

    Hank, how could that ever be an issue???  Of *course* she could
    consent!  
    
    						=maggie

    My take on Bork's stand on this situation, based on a news
    program excerpt of the hearings (which makes this incomplete,
    perhaps even suspect) was that Bork held that the company did
    NOT have to offer her ANY other job, at ANY wage.  Further,
    he asserted that the woman involved would have been grateful
    to be allowed to continue at this job after sterilization,
    although the woman, whose case this was, had stated under oath
    that she was not happy about it, and felt that she had been
    forced [by circumstances] to be sterilized.
    							Ann B.

    
    I happen to believe that people in this country have a *right* to
    work in a safe environment *and* get paid.  They shouldn't
    have to choose between the 2.  In South Africa, black miners
    risk their lives in unsafe working conditions because there are
    no other jobs for them.  And the laws of their government (so far,
    anyway) say that it's ok.  If women in this country have to get
    sterilized in order to keep their jobs, can you see what that could
    mean?  That corporations (sanctioned by the highest court in our
    country) will decide how safe (or unsafe) our work environment will
    be.  Is anyone else troubled by that?
    
    Justine

>< Note 417.60 by PNEUMA::SULLIVAN >
>                               -< What's Next? >-
>    
>    I happen to believe that people in this country have a *right* to
>    work in a safe environment *and* get paid.
    
    So do I.
    
>    That corporations (sanctioned by the highest court in our
>    country) will decide how safe (or unsafe) our work environment will
>    be.  Is anyone else troubled by that?
    
    Of course.  
    
    However, in the Cyanimide case it was not the corporation that made the
    decision, it was OSHA.  Due to the nature of the manufacturing processes
    and the resulting health hazard to pregnant women it was considered that
    the safety hazard could never be completely eliminated.  Therefore, no
    women capable of child-bearing were to be allowed doing that kind of
    work.  

    In following this note, I'm beginning to get the outline
    of (American Cyanamid?) case.  It's beginning to sound as
    if the factual detail of the case might make a difference
    in how one might make a decision.  Could someone please
    point me to a source that outlines the details or the case?
    
    Thanks in advance,
    
    Steve
    

>< Note 417.62 by CYBORG::MALLETT >
>                             -< A pointer, please >-
>
>    Could someone please
>    point me to a source that outlines the details or the case?

    I will attempt to find the article I mentioned a few replies back.  When
    I wrote the reply, I said it was in yesterdays Globe.  I may have been
    wrong as it may have been in the local paper on Saturday.  At anyrate, I
    will bring it in and enter it if I can find it.
    
    Mark Sawyer
        

        Regarding Justine Sullivan's comment
        
            I happen to believe that people in this country have a
            *right* to work in a safe environment *and* get paid.
            They shouldn't have to choose between the 2.
        
        The problem in the particular case is that, so far as I
        understand it, OSHA and the experts in the field feel that it is
        an established fact that there is *NO* safe for a woman who will
        later bear children to do the work in question. The chemicals
        involved are very strongly linked to birth defects.
        
        It maters a whole lot as to how you look at the problem. Do you
        view the question as "Should women who have been sterilized have
        the right to take this job that is unsafe for child-bearing
        women?" or do you view it as "Should women be forced to be
        sterilized in order to keep this job." Obviously from the second
        viewpoint coercing sterilization is a bad thing and certainly
        shouldn't be supported glibly. On the other hand, exempting
        sterile women from the ban on women doing this kind of work
        is a compasionate thing.
        
        This leaves us with the question of should women be banned from
        work that is shown to cause birth defects. This is a very
        interesting and hard question. Its, however--at least as I
        understand it--not the question that faced judge Bork. He was
        faced with a question that he, at least, felt was the one stated
        above--"Should sterile women be allowed to work in environments
        were child-bearing women are prohibited." It may be that he
        could have viewed the broader question, but without detailed
        knowledge of the facts of the case and the laws involved that's
        hard to second guess. 
        
        For the record, there are views of Judge Bork's that I am not
        at all happy to see in a Supreme Court Justice. I am not at all
        convincved he is the right candidate for the job. I'm merely not
        very happy about what appears to be and emotion presentation or
        possibly misrepresentation of the facts by portions of the media
        and by some of the judge's detractors. The man deserves to be
        judge on what he has really done.
        
        JimB.

    Well, I was not able to find all the information I mentioned in my
    previous replies.  Specifically, I remember reading an article where it
    was mentioned that OSHA was the agency that told American Cyanamid that
    the environment was unsafe for pregnant women.  At anyrate, after
    re-reading 3 Concord Monitors and the Boston Sunday Globe, this is what I
    found.  In my opinion it is a far cry from the inflammatory anti-Bork
    sentiment expressed in this notesfile.  BTW, thanks for posting the
    telephone number for expressing approval/disapproval for Bork's
    nomination.  I of course availed myself of the opportunity. :-)
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following excerpt is from the September 19 issue of the NH Concord
    Monitor and is reprinted without permission.  It is itself an article by
    David Lauter and David Savage of the Los Angeles Times.
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [... text unrelated to the American Cyanamid case deleted ...]

        The tensest moments of yesterday's hearing came when Sen. Howard
    Metzenbaum, a Democrat from Ohio, accused Bork of issuing a "shocking"
    ruling that gave female employees of a chemical plant "the choice of
    being sterilized or being fired."
    
        The case concerned an American Cyanamid Co. plant in West Virginia at
    which high lead levels were found in the air.  Since the air could not be
    made safe for pregnant women - a point agreed to by an administrative
    judge - the company told female workers they could work there only if
    they were sterilized.  A federal workplace review panel upheld the
    company's decision, but a union filed suit.  Speaking for a unanimous
    three-judge panel in 1984, Bork upheld the review panel.
    
        "The women involved in this matter were put to a most unhappy
    choice," Bork wrote.  "But no statute redresses all grievances, and we
    must decide cases according to law."
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    My comment:
    
    Note the first paragraph, more disinformation.  Bork did not ISSUE the
    ruling,  he was part of a three-judge panel that upheld a federal
    workplace review panel which upheld the company's position.
    

    It would be very interesting to note that if it could be demonstrably
    proven that certain kinds of hazards in work environment (e.g. heavy
    doses of microwave radiations) cause irreversible damage to a man's
    ability to produce healthy sperms, you can bet your life saving that
    "Get Sterilized" won't be a "choice" offered to him.
    
    Bork's views are extreme and he has repeatedly shown his lack of
    compassion towards women and minority.

    - Vikas

    I would argue that American Cyanimid's 'inability' --my sense is that
    the problem is economic, not technical-- to clean the air enough for
    safety should not have excused them from maintaining the income of the
    women they had to transfer to other jobs.  Someone commented that
    DEC's size gave us more options in the comparable case, but I don't
    see where that applies:  American Cyanimid aren't exactly a Mom&Pop
    grocery; it would not have compromised their earnings picture to
    have offered those women a decent choice.  Bork may share the blame
    for his unwillingness/inability to see that, but he is not thereby
    absolved of responsibility.
    
    			       			=maggie 

    Why is it that there only seem to be two categories of women in
    this case - sterile, and pregnant? Do the chemicals alter a
    non-pregnant woman such that if she leaves the job and gets pregnant
    years later, she's *still* liable for birth defects, or is it the
    presence of the chemicals during pregnancy that presents the risk?
    
    If the latter, why is it not acceptable to let the women choose
    whether or not to risk pregnancy? 
    
    I know, I know. The current liability situation makes companies
    run scared at the very thought. Even if a woman signed a waiver
    spelling out exactly what could happen if she got pregnant while
    working in the hazardous area, there would be fear that she could
    win a suit in the event that it happened anyway. But it seems to
    me that the safety ruling is a prime example of letting an agency
    place the welfare of a (potential) fetus over the welfare of the
    mother, and taking the decision out of her hands. While I believe
    that workers have a right to be informed of the hazards of the
    workplace, I also believe they have a right to accept those hazards
    if they see fit.

    (I've completely lost track of the argument now - does this mean
    I think Bork was right? I'd better read up on this in a hurry!)

    -b

>< Note 417.67 by MOSAIC::TARBET "Margaret Mairhi" >
>
>    I would argue that American Cyanimid's 'inability' --my sense is that
>    the problem is economic, not technical-- to clean the air enough ...

    I would argue that the problem was probably both economic and technical
    in nature.  I am not a biologist/chemist/doctor or anything of the sort
    but I can well imagine that if the technology required to make the
    environment safe for pregnant women cost enough, the process was no
    longer economically efficient.  Would you propose that if this was the
    case that American Cyanamid incorporate the expensive technology ???
    What if this put them out of business ???  None of us have the actual
    facts here; but, since you are so willing to see the dark side of
    American Cyanamid, would you care to comment make some comments regarding
    ecomonic efficiencies ???  Should a company be forced to implement an
    economically inefficient when it penalizes a large number of people for
    the benefit of a few.  Remember that there is no such thing as a free
    lunch.  Someone has to pay for the more expensive process.

>    ... for
>    safety should not have excused them from maintaining the income of the
>    women they had to transfer to other jobs.  ...

    Why should they maintain their income ???  If you are suggesting that AC
    should pay these women the same pay for less skilled jobs, would you care
    to address the issue of equal pay for equal work ???  I asked this
    question in a previous reply to this topic and noone has bothered to
    address it.
    
>    ... Someone commented that
>    DEC's size gave us more options in the comparable case, but I don't
>    see where that applies:  American Cyanimid aren't exactly a Mom&Pop
>    grocery; it would not have compromised their earnings picture to
>    have offered those women a decent choice.  ...

    I was the 'someone' that made that comment and I have not seen or heard
    anything that has changed my mind.  Granted, AC is definitely bigger than
    your typical Mom&Pop grocery, but you have not shown that AC had anything
    even close to a 'decent choice' to offer these women.  How can you make
    the statement that it would not have compromised their earnings picture
    without knowing anything about their operation. ???
    
>    ... Bork may share the blame
>    for his unwillingness/inability to see that, but he is not thereby
>    absolved of responsibility.

    I don't see how this follows at all.

    > From 417.65
    >        "The women involved in this matter were put to a most unhappy
    >choice," Bork wrote.  "But no statute redresses all grievances, and we
    >must decide cases according to law."

    Are you suggesting that Bork make a new law ???  I think not.  That
    should be left to our elected representatives.
    
    Mark Sawyer
    
        

re Note 417.68
>   While I believe that workers have a right to be informed of the hazards 
>   of the workplace, I also believe they have a right to accept those hazards
>   if they see fit.

    I would essentially agree with this argument.  Boxers (gasp) and 
    race car drivers, for example, have the right to engage in a risky 
    occupation.  However, I would argue that when you introduce the 
    element of (but you will lose your job or make less money if you 
    decide *not* to get sterilized) the level of *choice* is greatly 
    reduced.  
	
    Remember: these women did not enter into an occupation that they 
    *knew in advance* would be risky.  They gave the company their 
    service believing that their health was not in danger.  It was after 
    the women began giving that service that the company discovered 
    and revealed the lack of safety involved in the job.  So should 
    those workers be compensated?  I think so.  It seems to me that 
    at least implicit in any employment arrangement is the agreement 
    that the worker will provide a service, and the employer will provide 
    a safe work environment (along with whatever other protections are 
    guaranteed under the law).  To meet its obligation to the employee, 
    the employer should either make the work environment safe  *OR*
    provide a comparable (i.e. in pay, benefits, opportunity) work
    situation for those people who agreed to work there before learning 
    about the lack of safety.  With regard to the equal pay for equal work 
    issue that Mark Sawyer wants someone to address...  First of all,
    I frankly don't believe that there were no other jobs for which
    the women could be paid equally and/or trained.  And while I can't
    *prove* it, none of us really has enough info to *prove* anything;
    we can only offer our opinions, and that's mine.  Secondly, because
    of what I described above, i.e., that the women agreed to work there
    believing it was safe, I think that *those women* - the ones *already
    hired* should be kept on at their current wages or compensated in
    some other mutually agreeable way.
    
    Maybe the employer has the right to screen out future employees on 
    the basis of health risk, but what if it were suddenly revealed that 
    people over 50 are highly susceptible to cancer of some sort if they 
    spend over 30 hours a week working at a video terminal.  Would DIGITAL
    be allowed to fire all employees over 50?  With or without benefits?
    (And I can think of a more similar-to-the-case-at-hand scenario,
    but I'd rather not get into that kind of below-the-belt discussion.
    What you have to give up in order to keep your job is not at issue
    here.  I think the issue is that if the conditions under which you
    accept employment change... putting you at risk, should *you*
    be penalized?)
    
    It's scary to think about the way that future rulings might go ...

    Justine
                                        

    Re: My previous reply 417.69
    
    Sorry for the poor grammar, if I'd read it again before entering it, I
    would have caught the numerous grammatical mistakes.  I hope you get my
    drift though.
    
    Re: < Note 417.68 by MANANA::RAVAN >

>    Why is it that there only seem to be two categories of women in
>    this case - sterile, and pregnant? 

    I think it is more accurate to say that there are two categories of
    women, those that are sterile and those that are capable of
    child-bearing.  I think that the pregnant case is an extreme of the
    latter, ie. there is most definitely a risk.
        
>    Do the chemicals alter a
>    non-pregnant woman such that if she leaves the job and gets pregnant
>    years later, she's *still* liable for birth defects, or is it the
>    presence of the chemicals during pregnancy that presents the risk?

    From what I've read about lead poisoning in the newspapers concerning
    children and lead paint, I'm led to believe that the effects of lead
    poisoning are long term.  The lead is not readily removed from the
    system.

>    If the latter, why is it not acceptable to let the women choose
>    whether or not to risk pregnancy? 
>
>    I know, I know. The current liability situation makes companies
>    run scared at the very thought. Even if a woman signed a waiver
>    spelling out exactly what could happen if she got pregnant while
>    working in the hazardous area, there would be fear that she could
>    win a suit in the event that it happened anyway. 
    
    I think you answered the question quite well. :-)
        
>    (I've completely lost track of the argument now ...

    Again I agree.  This topic definitely went down a rat hole.  Knowing the
    sentiment of the community of this notesfile, I purposely stayed out of
    the discussion.  However, I had to enter my 2 cents worth when the entry
    about Bork advocating sterilization was entered.  Almost anything can be
    made to sound outrageous when taken out of context.  I therefore felt
    compelled to enter some 'facts' about the case.

>    ... - does this mean
>    I think Bork was right? ...

    He is probably not idealogically in line with you; however, when viewed
    strictly as a jurist and not a lawmaker, some of the anti-Bork statements
    lose there credability.
    
>    I'd better read up on this in a hurry!)
    
    An informed decision is definitely preferred. :-)
    

    RE: BOrk
    
    I've been catching pieces of the hearings on WBUR...
    
    This is one *^& of an intelligent, articulate man. A goodly portion
    of whose views are totally *from hunger*. What a shame.
    
    I happened to hear some of the questioning re: privacy, contraceptives,
    etc. (Griswold case? ) Anyway, one of the questions led to the privacy
    issue. The senator asked essentially, "well, here's this decision
    not allowing couples to purchase contraception - what's to prevent
    this decision from being used against them?
    
    Bork's reply was that a judge would never issue a search warrant
    for contraceptives. "Never happen." (Exact quote)
    
    This man has apparently never heard of selective enforcement. This
    privacy thing has too much possibility for real problems when enforced
    selectively. I can't believe this man is so innocent as not to know
    that this exists.
    
    Either he really believes that laws are fairly enforced, and certain
    individuals/groups are *not* harrassed by selective enforcement;
    or he ..... what? Has a hidden agenda? I don't know.
    
    This man's intelligence combined with his legal ideas scare the
    *%& out of me.
    
    One other thought: I caught Prof. Barbara Jordan's testimony. Now
    *there's* an intelligent, articulate person! This country lost a
    great deal when she retired from politics. Egad! How I wished it
    were *she* up for confirmation, and the roles reversed!
    
    Dawn
    

    Mark, I think Justine's .70 makes the point perfectly.
    
    But just for the record, you pounced on my parenthetical comment about
    economics and took off running, so I think I need to clarify that point
    explicitly.  No, I do not think --NOR did I imply, if you'll check it--
    that AC should beggar themselves by installing ruinously expensive
    technology. My comment was merely meant to note that the article's use
    of "unable" probably really meant "unwilling" in a technical sense:
    many companies used to claim that cleaning up smokestack emissions
    would be ruinously expensive, too...yet once compelled to either clean
    up or close down they somehow found that their straits weren't really
    so dire after all.  'mazing how that works.
    
    Cynical?  Me?  Naaawwwwwwww.               
    						=maggie

My understanding from hearing some of the testimony, reading the Globe,
and some notes on Usenet was that the problem is even more complicated
(and Bork perhaps less culpible).

The Cyanimid case apparantly contained both Constitutional and
non-constitutional aspects.  The company settled the constitutional
question out of court, and Bork was able to rule on only one narrow
aspect of the question.  It is not clear to me that his ruling, while
regrettable, was incorrect.  (I would be happy to have my mind changed
on this matter.)  Also, as an appeals judge, Bork was not in the
position either of unmaking existing law, nor of making new law.
(Compare this case with the Baby M case, where the judge was called
upon to rule in a case without any settled precedents.)

The question of worker safety does need to be discussed.
The foetus is made of the same substance as the adult, but is
far more sensitive to environmental poisons.  Thus, were I judging
the matter, I would hold the company explicitly responsible for
creating an environment safe for pregnant women, so that I could
be assured that it was also safe for adult humans.  I don't know
whether this was an issue judge Bork was called upon to decide, however.

Former Representative Barbra Jordan pointed out in her testimony that,
had it not been for the one-man-one-vote rulings of the 1960's she
would have never been elected to office in the heavily gerrymandered
Texas legislature.  (Can anyone get that women into the White House
where she belongs?  Even if she isn't electable, could we get her
appointed to Attorney General?)

Martin.

>< Note 417.73 by RAINBO::TARBET "Margaret Mairhi" >

>    Mark, I think Justine's .70 makes the point perfectly.

    While I'll agree that Justine makes several good points, I wouldn't say
    that they're perfect.  We have come to expect many things as being 'our
    right' and I'm not sure that I agree on that.  I used to be a 'flaming
    liberal' before I took a course in economics.  Now I suppose you could
    categorize me as a 'flaming Republican' on the side of big-business.
    After all, if it weren't for big-business, what do you think we'd all be
    doing ???  It is big-business that employs us and in essence helps us to
    keep a roof over our heads.  Please, I'm not suggesting that we should
    simply let big-business walk all over us; but, I think to penalize the
    many to save the few is the wrong approach.  You don't suppose that we
    have some very fundamental differences of opinion here do you ???  :-)
    
>    But just for the record, you pounced on my parenthetical comment about
>    economics and took off running, so I think I need to clarify that point
>    explicitly.  No, I do not think --NOR did I imply, if you'll check it--
>    that AC should beggar themselves by installing ruinously expensive
>    technology. ...
    
    Yes, I guess I did 'pounce' and take off running.  Sorry about that.  I
    didn't mean to imply that you implied anything of the sort.  I did
    however want to raise the issue of the economics of the additional
    technology required to make the environment safe.

>    ... My comment was merely meant to note that the article's use
>    of "unable" probably really meant "unwilling" in a technical sense:

    This of course is an ASSuMEption (sic) that supports your argument.
    Where is the basis in fact ???

>    Cynical?  Me?  Naaawwwwwwww.               

    What ???  No smiley face ??? :-)

    
    Back to the real topic, sort of:
    --------------------------------
    
    One of the points that Bork's supporters like to espouse is that of
    "judicial restraint."  
    
    Would anyone care to comment on that ???  
    Do we really want nine unelected judges making law ???   
    Shouldn't that be left to our representatives ???
    
    Mark Sawyer
    

    RE  .74
    
   >> BTW - I'd would be in MENNOTES except that it seems to be unavailable
   >>       most of the time.
    
    I don't know what to make of such a remark.

    Perhaps you should bring in a magazine to keep you
    busy the next time MENNOTES is down.
    
    Dale

Today's Boston Globe had a wonderful column by Ellen Goodman.  She
has appointed herself president of the "Free Bob Bork" committee.
You see, Bork is personally in favor of individual rights and liberties,
but doesn't see support for them in the Constitution.  He feels that,
if we are to have these rights, we need merely legislate them.

Goodman feels that Bork has been trapped by his principles, painted
into a corner where he must judge against his true desires.

So, she proposes that he shouldn't be confirmed to the Supreme Court,
but elected to Congress.

M.

    WEll, since we are in a situation in which the Supreme Court can
    either uphold or strike down such laws, thus creating "precedent"
    which affects, in turn, other rulings regarding that law - the
    gentleman has, indeed, placed himself squarely on the horns of a
    dilemma.
    
    OF course, there are those who would say, "But we *HAVE* legislated
    them." And, of course, we are also in a situation currently in which
    a law ain't a law until somebody takes it to court. And then, you
    get "precedent".
    
    etc.
    
    
    RE: Barbara Jordan in the white house, where she belongs:
    
    			HEAR, HEAR!!
    
    Dawn
    

    tsk, tsk, tsk ..... mennotes must be down again... 

    
    re -.1
    I think it was non-contentfull.

    Of course not_:-)  What could that possibly mean?

    Getting back to the topic, was there a time in the history of this
    country when the concept of "one-person-one-vote" was considered too
    radical? 
    
    If so, what exactly made the concept to become reality?  Was it the
    legislative body who instituted the changes or was it the Supreme
    Court?
    
    More importantly, does Bork have trouble with the concept of
    "One-person-one-vote"?  
    
    - Vikas

    re .85:
    
    First of all, what makes you think the U.S. is a "true democracy".
    It is not and was not intended to be.
    
    Secondly, the issue of one-man-one-vote does not have to do with
    voting rights directly, but with the population of congressional
    districts. The Supreme Court declared that all the districts must
    contain numerically equal populations. All the Constitution has
    to say directly on the matter is:
    
    ...The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty 
    Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;...
    	
    			- ARTICLE I, Section 2.
    
    I think that the problem Bork had with the SC decision is that it
    could result in some communities being broken up into other districts 
    resulting in a QUALITATIVE inequality of represention in order to create
    strict QUANTITATIVE equality of representation.
                                                   
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
    

================================================================================
Note 488.0                   vote NO on Judge Bork!                    2 replies
HPSCAD::DITOMMASO "Enjoying myself to death ..."     25 lines  23-SEP-1987 16:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
      There is a Judiciary Commitee opinion poll telephone number,
    where you can call and vote yes or no, for Bork's nomination.
    
    I'm not sure about the hours which you may call, but when you call,
    they will answer "Justice Department ..." , tell them you would
    like to vote NO (or yes) for Bork.  They will then ask you what
    state you are calling from.
    
    I don't know what kind of impact this poll will have on the nomination
    of Judge Bork, but, this is a chance for the average person to speak
    out.
    
    The number is:   ****   202-224-5225  **** 
    
    If I had the time (I'm very busy, deadlines and all!!!) ... I'd
    state a whole bunch of reasons why I think you should vote NO!!
    
    But, I'm  sure somebody could help me out on that, .. it isn't too
    difficult!!!
    
    Thanks  Paul
    (a very busy noter!! Its been a long time since I wrote a note in
     this conference!!)
    
================================================================================
Note 488.1                   vote NO on Judge Bork!                       1 of 2
HPSCAD::DITOMMASO "Enjoying myself to death ..."      9 lines  23-SEP-1987 16:45
                          -< NOT THE WRONG NUMBER!! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    CORRECTION!!!  They will answer "Senate Judiciary ..."
    
      Also, I'm sure they've been swamped with calls from MASS, maybe
    it would really help of people from other states than MASS called!!
    
    Thanks Again!! Paul
    
    (p.s.  My SO thanks you too!!)
================================================================================
Note 488.2                   vote NO on Judge Bork!                       2 of 2
HPSCAD::DITOMMASO "Enjoying myself to death ..."     13 lines  23-SEP-1987 17:08
                           -< One more time!!!!!!!! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    Ooops ... sorry,  I looked a few times and didn't see note 417!!
    Or, I didn't match the title with the subject!
    
    Sorry to clutter up the notes file with duplicate notes!!
    
    The only thing I can add is that they still are taking calls!!!
    
    I found out about the number from someone from a different company,
    had it been a DEC person, I would have expected this to already
    be in the notes file!
    
    Sorry

     r.74
    
>    Bork sounds revolutionary because he favors the Constitutional
>    role assigned to the Court, not the role which liberals have
>    assigned to it. The Court as been absorbed of late into the
>    liberal's agenda creation mechanism. Its true role is to pass
>    on the constitutionality of laws that Congress should be passing
>    to remedy social ills, not to make the laws. 


    Article 3, section 1 says that "The judicial Power of the United
    States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior
    Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish..."
    Section 2 says, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law
    and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United
    States, ..."

    What is this "judicial Power" that they talk about? It's never spelled
    out (unless it's elsewhere in the document), so it seems to me that
    "its true role" is subject to interpretation, which is based on
    precedent and on the feelings of the particular justices.


    I agree that Barbara Jordan was much better than the nominee, and
    better than most of the committee members. (Does anyone know why she
    retired?) I don't agree that she spoke without content, however.  Sen.
    Humphrey tried playing games with her, and wound up sounding like a
    jerk. She asked him how one arrives on a decision based on original
    intent, and he didn't have much to say of any value. Her discussion
    with someone (Metzenbaum?) about one-person-one-vote was good, as well.
    


    What happens if Bork isn't confirmed? Who else will be nominated? The
    only other name I've heard is Orin Hatch, who's no great shakes,
    either.

    I heard Edwin Meese!   
    
    (Doubtless spread about by those in favor of Bork. :'{   ) 

    re .88:
    
    The concept of "judicial review" was first established in the case
    Marbury v. Madison. This case established the role of the Supreme
    Court in determining the constitutionality of laws. I think it was
    John Marshall (no relation :-( ) who was Chief Justice at the time.
    Sorry, but I do not know the details of the case other than "Madison"
    was indeed James Madison, one of the primary Founders. (and I think
    he lost) 
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

        I heard some lovely commentary on "original" intent the other
        day which centered around how much of the constitution was
        written during the lifetime of Judge Bork. Oh, you mean the
        ammendment are PART of the Constitution?! And the Authors
        of the Constitution lived in three different centuries! And
        their intentions varied a little bit! Maybe interpretation
        isn't such a bad idea...
        
        JimB.

    re .85
    
    re: true democracy
    
    As Steve Marshall has pointed out, the United States is not and
    was not intended to be a democracy.  
    
    An interesting tale is told regarding the Constituion being signed
    in Philadelphia 200 years ago.  The story goes, that, after
    ratification, Benjamin Franklin was asked on the street by a woman
    what kind of government had been formed.  Franklins answer?
    
    "A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it."
    
    
    richard

RE: Democracy/Republic
    
    OK, so where do we *now* stand on the one-person-one-vote issue?  What
    is the guiding principle?  Is it one-dollar-one-vote, or is
    one-acre-one-vote, or is it one-man-one-vote-one-woman-half-vote, 
    or is it one-white-one-vote-one-black-half-vote? Isn't it closer
    to one-person-one-vote than any other principle?  My original question
    still remains unanswered.  Is the concept still considered too radical
    for the mainstream America?

RE: Bork    

    Funny thing is that the more I think about this issue, the more
    I realize that as individuals we have got lot less rights than
    we take them for granted.
    
    Indeed, if it were up to the majority of the people (i.e. legislative
    body), the minority rights will often get trampled upon and if the
    judicial body is supposed to act merely as a rubber stamp, then who is
    going to protect your rights as an individual? 
    
    Does the Constitution of United States gives (generic) me specific
    right to work in any state I choose to?  Does it give me any right to
    reside in the state I choose to?  Let's assume that there is no Federal
    Anti-discrimination Law. Exactly what prevents a state from passing
    blatantly discriminatory laws as long as the majority of the people
    want it?  Nothing.  And if we have someone on the Supreme Court who
    wants to let the majority rule the minority and does not recognize the
    basic rights derived from the Constitution, I as an individual from
    the minority has no recourse left.
    
    Interesting point about Judge Bork is that even though he thinks that
    "Come on Senator, no judge in his right mind would have issued a
    warrant based on the Connecticut Contraceptive Ban Law" (his own words
    during the testimony), he himself would have had no trouble in
    constitutionally uphelding the law. as he himself pointed out later
    "just because a law is stupid, does not mean it is unconstitutional"
    (once again his own words).  Since he does not recognize the basic
    right of privacy, he would have had no alternative but to go along with
    the Ban. 

- Vikas    

    re .93:
    
    The issue of "one man one vote" is, as I said earlier, really a
    question of equal representation. Originally the population that
    a representative represented was calculated as 
    
    |Representatives .... shall be apportioned among the
    |several States which may be included within this Union, according to
    |their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the
    |whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a
    |Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all
    |other Persons. ... The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for
    |every thirty Thousand, ...  (Article I, Section 2)
     
    Clearly "all other persons" (i.e. slaves) were not equally represented.
    
    The 14th amendment changed this passage to read:
    
    |Representatives shall be apportioned among the several
    |States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number
    |of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.  
    
    But the clause "... The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for
    every thirty Thousand, ..." remains in effect. So the issue
    remains that a congressman's district could be larger than 30,000.
    Thus the citizens of a district of 30,000 is "more" represented
    than one whose poplulation is (for example) 100,000. This example
    is of course clearly unfair, but suppose the sizes were instead
    35,000 and 38,000. It may not be entirely fair to redraw the districts
    just to maintain a strict numerical equality.
    
    > Exactly what prevents a state from passing blatantly discriminatory 
    > laws as long as the majority of the people want it?  Nothing.  
    
    The 14th Amendment.
    
    |SECTION 1.  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
    |subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
    |and of the State wherein they reside.  No State shall make or enforce
    |                                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    |any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
    |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    |the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,     
    |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    |liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
    |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    |person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 
    |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    
    
    > Does the Constitution of United States gives (generic) me specific
    > right to work in any state I choose to?  Does it give me any right to
    > reside in the state I choose to?
    
    Not specifically, but it does say: 

    | The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and
    | Immunities of Citizens in the several States.  
    					(Article IV, Section 2)
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
    

This came to me today via a mailing list from someone at UMass.  Please
    note that I am not telling/asking anyone to change their opinion,
    but rather if your opinion prompts you to take action either way,
    you are now aware of the access points below.
    
________________________________________________________________________
    
    As decisions are being made in Washington which potentially have
far more impact on the future of this country than the election
of a president, the following information is provided as a public
service:
 
The Senate subcomittee vote on Bork's nomination has been postponed
until TUESDAY.  (This vote decides whether the recommendation passed
to the full Senate will be positive, neutral, or negative).
 
The undecided senators (as of when last called) are our own Kerry, and
Specter of Penn., Heflin of Alabama, and DeConcini of Arizona.
 
            THEY DO TAKE OUT OF STATE OPINIONS.
 
They are getting so many calls that all they ask for is your "vote",
for or against, and your state. So it takes precious little of your
time to influence this decision.
 
The phones are:
 
Edward M. Kennedy     (202) 224-4543 - against (very much)
John F. Kerry         (202) 224-2742 - UNDECIDED and from MASS
Arlen Specter         (202) 224-4254 - UNDECIDED - Penn.
Howell Heflin         (202) 224-4124 - UNDECIDED - Alabama
Dennis DeConcini      (202) 224-4521 - UNDECIDED - Arizona
 
You may also write them (soon!) at:
 
The Honorable <first> <mi> <last>
Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
 
And our representative:
 
The Honorable Silvio R. Conte
20300 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-5335
 

    I've just called Kerry's office and he 's opposed to the Bork
    nomination.Apparently, he declared himself yesterday...(sigh).
    ann marie

                                So is Spectre

    			*** YEAH!!!! ***
    
    			    BORK IS 
    
    			O-U-T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!         

    
    
    Does that mean that Bush will run as an incumbent?
    
    

    
    
    Is it really true - I don't think I could stand it if he made it.
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |	Thank the Goddess
    				I will continue to bake cakes for
    				the Queen of Heaven and pour librations
    				in her honor and just about anything
    				she asks
    

    Bork IS NOT out until the full Senate votes. (or did Reagan withdraw
    the nomination?) The Judiciary Committee voting "NO" does not eliminate
    him, it is merely a recomendation to the Senate.
    
    With a negative recommendation his chances are very poor, but Reagan
    may be able to call in a number of favors, make a few deals, etc.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re .98
    I just heard the news, and you're partly right. The Senate Judiciary
    committee voted 9-5 against recommending Bork's nomination. The full 
    Senate still needs to vote, but, as s.m. says, chances for Bork's 
    confirmation are now very poor. (Reagan has still vowed to fight
    for it, though)
    
    liz
    
    

    Did they actually release it from committee to a floor vote then?
    That isn't nearly as strong as strangling it in camera, which is
    what a 9:5 vote sounds as tho it shuda been.
    
    						=maggie

    Maggie, no matter WHAT the judicial committee said, it still had
    to go upwards for a vote.. what a noter said a couple of replies
    back about Reagan calling in "major" favors, can (and could) be
    done, and BORK still could be voted in... sigh... I only found this
    out a little while ago too...
    
    Gale

    	RE:  .105
    
    	From the interviews I saw on CNN yesterday afternoon, Bork has
    	almost zero chance of making it at this point.
    
    	I saw Ronnie himself, and he looked pretty shaky (yeah, I know...
    	he *ALWAYS* looks pretty shaky.)  :-)
    
    	He said he wasn't going to give up, but he said his little
    	"No." to the question without much conviction.
    
    							Suzanne...

    I'm sure our 'illustrious' president would come up with someone worse
    for his next nominee.                 
                                 
    Helen       

    
    I heard on NPR this morning that (assuming Bork doesn't make it)
    Congress *could* hold out until after the next presidential election.  
    It had something to do with the President appointing someone to
    the bench while the Congress is in recess.  Did anyone else hear the 
    story or know more about it?
    
    Justine         
    
           

While Congress (just the Senate?) is in recess, the President can appoint
Supreme Court justices who serve -- I believe -- until the end of the
next session or until they are confirmed/rejected by the Senate.
This is unlikely.

The interesting thing about the Bork nomination is that he was defeated
in committee, in part, because of the political strength of Blacks,
women, and ethnic minorities.  Southern senators discovered last year
that they could get elected even though they lost the white vote, as
long as they received strong support from the Blacks in their state.

Reagan has very little political power left -- he proved that during
the last Congressional elections.  By forcing the Senate to vote,
he will "hold their feet to the fire" and make it harder for moderate
Republicans to get support from the fire-breathing wing of the Republican
party.  Instead of the two strong centrist parties we were accustomed to
up until the mid-60's, we may end up with two more extreme parties, each
beholden to periferal interests.  Ultimately, this may result in
a third (currently non-existant) party sweeping up the middle.

Martin.

    The nomination  is  not dead yet. It's in real trouble, but Reagan
    has  pulled  rabbits out of his hat before, so we have to keep the
    pressure   on  our  senators.  Various  people  pointed  out  that
    Alabama's  senator  left  himself  room to change his mind and I'm
    sure that a lot of pressure will be brought to bear on everyone in
    the Senate. Remember the sleazy tricks used to confirm Manion such
    as  promising a senator a water project for his district (and than
    not delivering it.)

    So, this  is  a  good  first step, but we must keep fighting until
    he's defeated in the full senate.

In response to an earlier question:
    If  Bork  isn't  confirmed,  and the fight goes on for another few
    weeks,  It  will  be  very  difficult to confirm anyone before the
    Senate  recesses  in  December.  If one nominee is defeated, it is
    ofthen  easier to defeat another, particularly against a lame duck
    president.  (LBJ had his later nominations rejected.)

    Reagan could  make  an  interim  appointment,  which traditionally
    hasn't  been  done, but Reagan has used it in other places when he
    couldn't get his choice confirmed.

--David

    NPR news report stated that the Senate is going to try to bring
    this to a vote by the end of next week.
    
    Also, a commentator stated that this may be a political move by
    Reagan to ensure that if Bork is defeated by the Senate, Reagan's
    next nominee will pass fairly easily, even if he is as controversial
    as Bork.  

    I heard Reagan say "Over my dead body" regarding the defeat of Bork's
    nomination.
    
    I heard a psychic on TV the other day predict that RR won't live
    out his term.
    
    Hmmm.
    
    Dawn
    

    Re .109 (and to a lesser extent a few others).  A discussion of
    Bork's qualifications and opinions might be interesting but the
    attacks on Reagan serve little more purpose than to show you for
    what you are.  The note is not titled 'Reagan,' or 'Look what
    Reagan is attempting to do.'
    
    How about directing the comments correctly?  Bash Reagan, or if
    you choose, but at least make an attempt to discuss Bork.
    
    Douglas

    One aside:  some time ago, one of the noters had a reply
    title that read "But it is certain he WILL be confirmed"
    and, although it may not, in fact, have been *certain*, it
    seems to me that when the process began, most folks figured
    Bork's chances were a lot better than they are now.
    
    I have a feeling that the public outcry was a major factor
    in swaying the Senate Judiciary Committee; though it may
    be a small one, I toast the victory (and if I'm being naive,
    I don't want to know about it :-D  ).
    
    Steve
    

    I heard something funny on the radio this morning.  On Z94, the
    two commentators "pretended" to place a telephone call to Reagan.
    
    The question to Reagan went something to the effect of "President
    Reagan, did you hear that the committee voted Bork down 9 to 5?"
    and to that Reagan replied, "What does a movie starring Dolly Parton
    have to do with anything?  Ha ha, I saw that line and I had to take
    it".  Next question, "I heard you say, in regards to Bork's defeated
    nomination, 'over my dead body'" and Reagan replied, "again, I've
    been misquoted.  What I actually said "was over George Bush's dead
    body, yuk yuk".  Then Reagan says, "Oh, listen, got to go, the new
    Romper Room is on, you know, Miss Jeans, 'bend and stretch'.
    
    Cathy (who prefers to laugh now)

    RE: .114
    
    That was me.  I would love to eat my words and really looking forward
    to it.  But it is not over, yet.
    
    I have to agree that if Bork was not honest and had decided not to
    answer questions, he would had lot better chances.  But once he made
    his views known on privacy, freedom of speech, majority will, women's
    rights, among others, he made lot of people uncomfortable.  I have to
    wonder if the next nominee is going to avoid answering questions about
    his judicial views to avoid getting scrutinized. 
    
RE:  "Over my dead body":-  He had another one yesterday.  
    "As long as I have a living breath in my body. I will support Contras." 

    - Vikas

    Has anyone noticed that political cartoons of Bork look a lot like
    political cartoons of Khomeini?
    
    Hmmm.  They do kind of resemble each other, and seem to share some
    views...
    
    Elizabeth
    

RE: .117 et al.

I find it rather repulsive to see such slurs cast at someone who has
dedicated a large part of his life to honorable public service.

I find Judge Bork's views frequently to be anathama to me, but I do
not believe that he deserved in any way the personal vilification that
has been heaped upon him.  

Several points follow:

1.  THE SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE:  When then Solicitor General Bork fired
Archibald Cox at President Nixon's command, I was residing in Washington DC.
At that time Bork refused to comment on the whole affair, but both Eliot
Richardson (The Attorney General who quit) and William Ruckelshouse (the
Deputy Attorney General who also quit) announced that Bork had also
threatened to resign rather than fire Cox; and that they (Richardson and
Ruckelshouse) had urged him to remain in order to avoid the anarchy in
the Justice Department which would surely arise with the departure of so
many in high places.  Richardson and Ruckelshouse have both also stated
that there was absolutely no question of whether the President had the
legal right to fire Cox, they just considered doing so unethical and so
they resigned rather than compromising their own integrity -- this is
exactly the same position that Bork has espoused.  So lets give him a 
break folks.  Bork also resigned soon afterwards after a new Attorney
General was appointed.

2.  The American Cyanimid Case:  From my understanding of the case, Judge
Bork and his colleagues(sp?) had to decide whether a corporation could
declare a whole set of working positions off-limits to women unless
they were either past child-bearing age or sterile.  Th company, at the
insistance of OSHA, had made such a move to protect its women workers.
The union sued on behalf of its women members, because the positions that
were involved were among the highest-paid in the plant and shutting them
off to women would prevent women from achieving promotions and rising upwards
to better pay, etc.  There was no one woman who was told to get a sterili-
zation, the issue was one of 'women's rights' - i.e. was it discriminatory
for a whole class of higher-paying jobs to be declared off limits to women?

The original Judge declared that it was not discriminatory, and Judge Bork
and his fellow-judges on the Court of Appeals confirmed that decision.
The Supreme Court on appeal declined to review that case, apparently
not disagreeing.

Remember that it's easy to take things out of context and twist them.

Judge Bork is not my choice for the Supreme Court, and I have called and
written the Senators involved to urge them to vote against him.  But, I
believe him to be an intellegent, caring individual who does not deserve
the personal vilification to which he has been subjected.

Let's work to defeat him, but there is no reason to bash him.  He isn't
a cheap poltroon the likes of Harold Carlswell whom Nixon tried to
appoint to the Court.  Give him a break!

    I tend to agree with .118. However, I am more sure than ever that
    this person is not the one for the job. His resistance to dropping
    this issue (granted, he is beging pressured by RR) shows me that
    he is more interested in "proving" some point than in the running
    of the government, or in the efficient return-to-order of the Supreme
    Court. 
    
    I understand the Cox deal. I think it was your garden variety political
    game-playing. But I *understand* it. I believe the gentleman thought
    that the smooth continuation of government was a priority, and he
    based his actions on that priority.
    
    The current situation calls for a smooth move. He's not making it.
    
    Dawn
    

I disagree with Bork's philosophy of government and his assumptions of
the rights of individuals with respect to the government.

On the other hand, he does seem to be an honorable -- and relatively
apolitical -- person.  As such, I can well understand his making
a principled stand to force the Senators to fulfil their Constitutional
role of "advise and consent."  It takes a certain amount of guts to
stand up and say "I know I'll lose this vote, but politicizing the
court is wrong, and I'm not going to let you (the Senate) off by
quitting."

He is, for better or for worse, doing what he feels is right, and
-- however much I disagree with his Constitutional philosophy -- I
certainly admire Judge Bork for doing what he feels is the right thing.

Spurred by this topic, I've started a 'government' conference...

I hope that you women will get in on the ground floor...

Jim.

              <<< VADER::DRA3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]GOVERNMENT.NOTE;1 >>>
                      -< Let's make it *our* government! >-
================================================================================
Note 1.0                 Let's make it *our* government               No replies
VADER::SYSTEM "If I were a realist, I'd be dead."    26 lines  13-OCT-1987 16:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This NOTES Conference is devoted to the ideal of having a government being
repsonsive to the people it governs.  Let us share ideas how we can make our
various governments obey our needs, rather then letting them run amuck! Let us
keep track of what various governments, governmental agencies, and government
officials are up to, so that they don't sneak anything past we the people. 
Let us use this Conference to empower us to make the government *ours*.

Let us *not* use this Conference for political campaigning, or turn ourselves
into politicians, taking on the flaws of our political system.  Let us debate
issues, but keep the debate to a minimum.  State your piece, and please listen
to other people's point of view.  Keep to the facts, and avoid flames and
disinformation.  Let us have a Conference which has the tolerance to have a
pluarality of options, so that we can *all* work to *all* have the government we
would like. 

Any and all levels of government, agencies, and officials are fair game. World,
Continental, Country, State, County, Town, and other geographical governments
are fair game.  Government in countries other then the US are fair game.
However, let us remember that the purpose of this Conference is to empower it's
people to live in the kind of country they want, not for people to flame about
other countries.

Let's try to keep the issues, level of government, and geographic locality under
discussion under control, and organized. 

Jim Baranski

    You know, Bork's stand triggerered off a new topic.  But before
    writing a new note I'd like to present the issue.  From my perception
    the "attitudes" men have towards women whose resistance to dropping
    the issue is labeled as one as department outcast, feminist, liberal,
    and so forth.                              
    

    Sorry, I don't understand how to parse 417.122. can someone help
    explain it?
    
    thanks
    liz

    re .123:
    
    I think that s/he would like to discuss:
    
    the attitude some men have that causes them to label women as
    "department outcast", "feminist", "liberal" etc., when that woman
    resists dropping some issue.
    
    is that right SEGUIN?         
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    yes in that is the topic to be introduced.
    
    no in that the point is:       men do have labels for women who
    resist dropping issues. Those labels are like those presented
    in .123.
    
    Some issues women may refuse to drop is one of power. 
    Since the majority of those in power are men the lable
    one might might place on such a woman could be "man-hater".
    
    What label would your co-works place on Bork if Bork was your radical
    feminist in the group?

    from Reagan's "shoot from the hip" speech last night (or some time
    yesterday)...
    
    something on the order of
    "those who objected to the Bork nomination will dislike my next
    nomination just as much!"
    
    feh.
    
    -Jody
    

    Yah, sorta shows you who *really* started the 'politicizing', don't
    it? I'm surprised the media wolves didn't run with that statement
    (which I heard quoted as more like "if you didn't like Bork, you'll
    dislike my next choice EVEN MORE" (not "just as much.") I don't know
    which version is closest to reality.)

    My first thought on hearing the quote was: Hmmm, so if women and
    minorities found plausible cause to fear Bork, now they have even
    more to worry about? What could RR hope to gain with this attitude?
    
    Mindboggledly, Chuck

    Well, it's official!
    
    The nomination of Bork to the Supreme Court has been REJECTED by
    the US Senate this afternoon!
    
    
    Whew,
    
    Dave