Share this story
Close X
Switch to Desktop Site

Bork on elections and constitutional law

The November election will be a major factor in determining the judicial direction constitutional law takes, says former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. ``You're likely to find a more activist judiciary appointed by Governor Dukakis, one determined to expand a moral and social agenda that is quite liberal,'' says Judge Bork, the conservative scholar whose nomination was defeated by the Senate last year after a bitter battle over judicial ideology.

In an interview in his American Enterprise Institute office here, Bork adds that if Vice-President Bush were elected, on the other hand, he would appoint ``temperamentally conservative'' judges ``who are more likely to take the court along a path down the center.'' He says that Mr. Bush would not ``appoint people who would roll back much of what has happened.''

About these ads

The former federal judge insists that the current Supreme Court will not ``expand the Constitution into new areas where it has never been before.''

Bork says that many issues fall into the category of ``settled law'' for they are ``embedded in our social fabric now.'' As an example, he refers to the broad power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, which is often challenged. ``It is simply too late to roll that back, because it would cause chaos in a lot of institutions and with a lot of statutory provisions,'' Bork explains.

Is the landmark 1973 abortion decision, Roe v. Wade, now ``settled law?''

Bork says it is not. But he does not expect the present Supreme Court - even with its apparent anti-abortion majority - to repeal soon the right of a mother to terminate a pregnancy. He says the court may restrict, rather than abolish, abortion by dealing with ``peripheral'' issues, such as the legality of state laws that require parental notification or a judge's permission for teen-agers to obtain an abortion.

Do the justices respond to the public mood?

Bork says they do not vote in accord with election returns. But he explains that ``judges are mortals. New judges are likely to see things the way their generation does.''

He adds, however, that the Constitution was devised to hold electoral majorities in check.

Follow Stories Like This
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.