The Weekly Standard: William Kristol- Robert H. Bork, 1927-2012: The Legacy of Robert Bork

Source: The Weekly Standard Robert H. Bork-

Source: The Weekly Standard: William Kristol- Robert H. Bork, 1927-2012

I'm sure there were tough Supreme Court nomination debates pre-1987 before Robert Bork, but perhaps not before. Not only the TV age, but the TV cable age where there was twenty-four-hour coverage of Congress everyday with C-SPAN. Which is probably a reason why the Bork nomination was so controversial I guess and divisive. Where you had Democrats who couldn't stand the idea of a Robert Bork on the U.S. Supreme Court and you had Republicans who were in love with Bob Bork and represented exactly what they wanted on the Supreme Court. Especially Neoconservative traditionalist Republicans who question whether or not the United States has a right to privacy and how they believe our freedom of speech shouldn't be as strong as it is and don't see things like indefinite detention and the Patriot Act and censorship of certain media as unconstitutional. And how he would've been the exact choice in who Neoconservatives in and outside of the Bush Administration and exactly who they would've wanted on the Supreme Court. Instead of who they got instead which was Anthony Kennedy who has more of a libertarian streak in him.

Another thing that separated Bob Bork from judicial nominations that came after him, was the fact that Judge Bork would almost go out-of-his-way to let the Senate know where he stands on the issues. And said things like the right to privacy doesn't exist and that Roe V. Wade that made abortion legal in the United States was unconstitutional. And decided improperly to use as examples and post-Bork judicial nominations have gone out-of-their-way not to let the Senate know where they stand on the issues. And what they would do instead is tell Senators what they know about cases that they are talking about, but would refuse to tell them what they think about them, just what they know about them. So we would see judicial nominees like John Roberts and Elena Kagan who are very familiar with the cases in front of them, but wouldn't give much of even a hint on where they stand on those cases for fear of being seen as too ideological.

I'm sure Bob Bork was a very fine man certainly a very honest man and you knew where he stood on the issues. But I'm sure as hell glad as a Liberal Democrat that he was rejected by both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate on a bipartisan vote because of where he stood on civil liberties and things like are Federal civil rights laws constitutional or not. Which I believe they clearly are and i'ts almost silly to debate I believe. And believe Judge Bork would've been dangerous to have up on the Supreme Court as we are now debating civil liberties and individual freedom in this country. The other thing I don't get about the Bork Supreme Court nomination is the President who appointed him. President Ronald Reagan a man that described his own politics as libertarian in 1975 and really never ran from that. Didn't give the Christian-Right and other big government Republicans much to admire him as far as policy when he became President. And maybe that is why he nominates Bob Bork, because he saw that as is way to pay back the Far-Right for their support.
Traditionalism-C-SPAN: Booknotes With Brian Lamb- Slouching Towards Gomorrah With Robert Bork

CBS News: 60 Minutes- Mike Wallace Interviewing The Shah of Iran (1976)

Source:CBS News- the Shah of Iran being interviewed by CBS News investigative correspondent Mike Wallace, in 1976.

“In 1976, Mike Wallace revealed to the Shah of Iran that the CIA considered him a dangerous megalomanic and an uncertain ally.”

From CBS News

Source:Aryuo Padafand- The Shah of Iran, talking to CBS News's Mike Wallace, in 1976.

"60 Minutes M. Valles with Shah 1976. Shah Bozorg Mard Iran dar 60 Minutes."

From Aruyo Padafand

What Iran had in the Shah was much better for the America and Europe than what Iran has now in the Islāmic Republic. Because with the Shah we had an ally that would work with, that we would trade with and we could rely on for our energy needs.

With the Islāmic Republic, we have a state that sponsors terrorism and is now attempting to get nuclear weapons. But as valuable as an ally as the Shah was to the West, he wasn’t that great for his own people.

Which was a big reason for the Islāmic Revolution of 1979 and he and his monarchy being kicked out-of-power. Even though the Shah did some positive things to develop the Iranian economy and military, to a certain extent. He was an authoritarian dictator with a secret police that would pick people up off the street. As well as torture inmates, close down publications that seemed unfavorable to the Monarchy.

What’s going on in the Islāmic Republic today, but the difference being that the Islāmic Republic, is bad for its people, but also bad for the Middle East and West. With its sponsorship of Islāmic terrorism groups that have killed Americans as well as our soldiers. Like with the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983. the Islāmic Republic did replace the Monarchy.

But Iran left in a lot of the authoritarian policy’s that the Monarchy had, as well as probably having some of their own. And they haven’t done much to advance Iran economically in its thirty-two years despite its vast resources in energy and its well-educated public and its middle class. Iran has all the resources that they need to be a first world country, but they’ve mismanaged them so badly. That they are still a third world country.

What the Shah should’ve done and had he done these things, I believe he could’ve saved his Monarchy, was as he continued to build up the economy, education and infrastructure and the Iranian military, then liberate his people. Let them live their own lives which would’ve put them ahead of everyone else in the Middle East. Except for Turkey and maybe Israel, but Iran and Turkey are so much bigger than Israel. But the Shah of Iran would’ve been a very popular leader in Iran had he done these things.

And then maybe with all of these progressive reforms, Iranians wouldn’t have looked to theocrats, the most conservative of Religious Conservatives, to save them and save their country from the Shah. Who in some ways on economic and foreign policy, was a fairly liberal leader, as Middle Eastern leaders go.

The Shah of Iran, I believe would’ve lasted as the Leader of Iran, had he liberalized his large country and became President of Iran instead. With a federal legislature, independent judiciary and of course his people to answer too. And turned the Monarchy into more of a ceremonial institution like in Britain. But he didn’t do those things and was kicked out-of-power.

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Bob Parker: World News Tonight With Peter Jennings- 'Balanced Budget Story From 1995'

Source:Bob Parker- U.S. Representative Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois) Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in 1995 and a proponent of a BBA.

"Story about Congress talking about a balanced budget amendment from January 1995.  It is kind of funny to hear what is being said in wake of the current debt ceiling debate." 

From Bob Parker

I've been thinking about the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on and off for about fourteen years now or so (back when I was in kindergarten, ha, ha) since the last time Congress spent time considering it. 

At first I kind of liked the idea as someone who believes in fiscal responsibility, which me to means spend no more than you make and try to save as much as possible and put away as much as possible without hurting yourself. And only spending money on the things that you need and spend that money in the most efficient way as possible. Concepts that the Federal Government doesn't seem to understand, as well as a lot of state government's. 

My main problem with a Balanced Budget Amendment, would be the Federal courts or any other courts. Do we want unelected bodies telling the Federal Government how it can spend the tax revenue it collects, which I believe could happen when there are issues of whether Federal budgets are balanced and in the black or not. And when could the Federal budget be in the red, because all Balance Budget Amendments have exceptions for when the budget can be in the red. Like when the country is under attacked or in a depression, when the Federal Government is the only institution thats capable of borrowing money in America. Because they control the national currency and it might take a Federal judge to decide that these things are happening, even if it's obvious to everyone else. 

There are certain times in life for the Federal Government to now borrow money and go in the red and run a deficit. So for me to support a Balanced Budget Amendment, it would have to designed in a way to avoid this. Would be to leave it up to the Congressional Budget Office or Federal Reserve, people who can get fired for not doing a good job. Unlike Federal judges who can only be removed through impeachment and conviction which comes from being corrupt. And generally not from the job they do as judges. 

Or have some type of super majority vote in both chambers of Congress to declare its OK to borrow money, lay out what the conditions are and force Congress to declare them before it borrows money. The Balanced Budget Amendment has no place in today's debt and deficit reduction debate. Because it doesn't have the votes in either chamber of Congress to pass right now. And it would take 5-10 years for it ever to become law anyway because the states would have to approve it. 

But down the road a BBA I believe has some potential if we can keep the Federal courts out of making budget decisions for the Federal Government. A BBA that I could support, would only have three exceptions for the FEDS to borrow money and would have a strict PAYGO (pay as you go) requirement for the FEDS to borrow money. The United States itself would have to be under attacked and for us to be at war. Not a military base oversees but the country physically itself. 

Two, we are either in a depression or recession which would be declared by lets say the Federal Reserve and those would be my only two exceptions. And then the President would have to declare this and it would take a 3/5 Vote in both chambers of Congress to make it official. All other Federal operations would have to be paid for when one of the two exceptions to borrow money hasn't been declared. Including military operations domestic and foreign including war and invasions and disaster relief. 

And these things can be paid for if the Federal Government sets up fund for both of them. And then I would put in things as long as we are under a BBA, that require the Federal Government to stay within economic growth and the rate of inflation. Meaning it couldn't grow higher than those two rates. 

A Balanced Budget Amendment if done right, could result in forcing the Federal Government to be responsible with the tax revenue it collects and set priorities and actually pass a Federal budget every year. Instead of running the country into red and piling on debt that no one can pay back or has the intention of ever paying back.