The Bork Bill The Bork bill is named after Robert Bork, an American scholar that was an advocated forThe Judical pholisphoy of originalism. Originalism is a principle of interpretation that tries to
Discover the original meaning or intent of the constitution. This falls under the umbrella of two
Theories. Those two theories are the Intent theory which is the interpretation of a written
Constitution that Is consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. The
Other is the original Means theory that view the interputation of a written constitution or law
Should be based on what Reasonable people living at that time of its adoption would have declared. Robert Bork served as a law professor at Yale Law School. He served as a judge of the
United States Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia Circuit. He was nominated by
Ronald Regan to the Supreme Court on July 1, 1987 to take the spot of Associate Justice
William Rehnquist. Senator Ted Kennedy declared: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley Abortions, blacks would sit at segregated Rogue police could break down citizens Door in midnight raids, school children could not be taught about evolution, writers And artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of Federal Courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.”
Bork nomination was declined on October 23, 1987. Bork was unhappy with the treatment of the nomination process, so he resigned his appellate court judgeship in 1988. I think the real issue surrounding the Bork bill was not what videos that Bork watched but that his privacy was violated by the reporter and the investgators. The reporter invaded his privacy based on the privacy act of 1974. (u.s.c. 552a), which mandates how the federal agencies maintain records about individuals. The law strives to balance the government need to maintain these records with the individual’s right to be protected from unwarranted invasions of personal privacy.www.gov.//privacy It was also reported that investigators tracked down a paramedic that had been summons to his home. Only to find out there had been a fall. But not because he was a heavy drinker as thought. Congress saw how easy information on others got out and may then began to think about the skeletons in their closet, so Congress came up and passed the Video Privacy Act (18 U.S.C.2710) in the wake of the controversy that arose over Bork’s video rental. The Bork bill simply states that video rentals outlets cannot disclose information about customers without customer consent. It also allowed customers to sue for damage if they were harmed in any way by the violation of the act. The reporter had a job a responsibility to seek the truth about Mr. Bork and reporting the information that he found. But there seemed to be no evidence to go on, apart from Bork's conservative skepticism regards of liberal claims. The reporter should have examined his personal values in this situation as well as follow suit with the professional journalism value of minimizing harm or treating Mr. Bork with respect. If the reporter did not find any information regarding Bork the investigation should have been over and done with. There was also another dilemma that where Congress was concern. Congress was also investigating Bork. But to have a reporter or anyone else for that matter to walk into a place and request records on you is somewhat frighten. Because there could have been skeletons in their closets that they did not want anyone to find out about. Also members of their families could have been affected in some way shape or form. They realized that the same thing could have happened to them. And they didn’t want that to happen. This is the reason that they passed the Video Privacy Act. Many would stand to blame the reporter or the Senate for the fail nomination of Robert Bork. But I would say that the blame should be placed on Bork himself. Bork rushed into making rash decisions because of his strict conservative and original intent supporters. It seems that the interest groups were more concern about making sure there was a balance of power. His down fall was his own fault because he was overzealous in expressing his views. He also spent a lot of time answering questions about his way of thinking on cases and doctrine that gave an outlook on his opinions instead of the intellect instead of his record speaking for itself. His overzealousness allowed the Senate to use the information he gave as a way to use what he said against him. They use it to show that there would be conflict and bias to what he could bring to his decision making. He should not have put himself into the position to answer questions that was none of the senate business. It could also be said that he had a controversial issue when he argued the first amendment was only for political speech and that Roe vs. Wade was usurpation of state rights. His views led him to conclude that poll taxes were constitutional and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States [1] that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women. [2] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public ("public accommodations"). He said “that law was based on a principle of unsurpassed ugliness.” This way of thinking basically could have led to a part of the opposition to his nomination Bork was described as A notoriously cranky and conservative jurist a “originalist” who argued that American freedom, prosperity, and morality were under siege by liberalism. In which he expressed in his book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, where he catalog the supposed moral collapse of the United States. A once great country, he argued, had come under assault by feminists, multiculturalists, gay- rights activists, the professoriate, libertarians, and liberals. It was with that kind of thinking that younger generation of conservatives was wary of waging an endless culture war, moved away from Bork-style. Gov. George W. Bush told a gathering at the Manhattan Institute that the Republican Party required a certain degree of modernization to compete in the 21st century, taking a not-so-veiled dig at Bork: “Too often on social issues my party has painted an image of America slouching towards Gomorrah.”
It would seem that Bork was like many others originalist who had thoughts about what the founding fathers intended in the constitution. It seems that once he did not get the nomination he became an angry right wing moralist. But really his thoughts and moral lay at the door of bigotry.
Many will remember him as a pioneer in a school of constitutional thinking devoted to the text and original meaning of the Constitution. Others will remember him as one of the most influential legal scholars of the last 50 years. Leo called Bork "one of our country's fiercest and most articulate defenders of the Constitution as it was written." Like many other conservative justices - although more outspoken and in great recorded detail - Bork held that judges should interpret the law narrowly according to the "original intent" of the Constitution's framers rather than making new law, which they called judicial activism. His long record of writings and decisions was an active jurist made him vulnerable to attack. Among the most controversial were his views that the Constitution contained no generalized right to privacy nor unlimited authorization of free speech. His defeat for confirmation to the Supreme Court was "the decisive moment in politicizing the process of judicial selection.” Three months after the Senate turned down his nomination; Bork resigned as judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit after six years of service and went into private law and supporting conservative causes for years to come. the confirmation of 1987 is bound to serve for future hearings and nominees. If we are to learn anything from this it is that the privacy of American has to be protected from the prying eyes. Whether it is the eyes of your neighbors, friends, family or the Senate, one does have a right to privacy. It is one thing to look into the life and character of a nominee, but reporters should have the most respect when dealing with anyone life. In dealing with a situation as this a regular person may take into consideration that their privacy was violated. And to find out what they could do. As I looked into what is a violation of privacy I found that Invasion of privacy is the Prying upon, or revelation of, something private. One, who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his/her private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to for the invasion of privacy. One would have to determine that what the others did was intent to hurt or harm the judge. One way that one could deal with the issue of invasion of privacy is to being a lawsuit against the individual who has violated your rights. They would just have to prove it was with the intent to harm or embarrass a person. I also found that it could be a bit different for public figures because they have less privacy where it evolves around the law as it relates to the media. But as for public figures it excludes personal matter or activities which may be of interest to the public. But the main thing would be that if you have any attentions on running for public office is to make sure that you are ready and able to deal with anything that comes your way. If there is any information that you don’t want anyone to know you better keep it to yourself. Thus public figures are human also but they do have a responsibility to be truthful and upfront with public in which they are going to serve. When one is in the political field, they should not be in such a rush to divulge information so quickly and to be overzealous in their actions. When people are being questioned they do not have to answer question that is not any of their business and have nothing to do with what is at hand.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/12/postscript-robert-bork-1927-2012.html#ixzz2Lel58KHr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States www.thedailybeast.com/.../speed-read-best-bits-from-robert... articles.latimes.com/1988-05-11/news/mn-2597_1_tapes-bork townhall.com/columnists/billmurchison/2012/12/25/...bork.../full/ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1291&dat...id...sjid... Huskey v. National Broadcasting Co., 632 F. Supp. 1282 (N.D. Ill. 1986). townhall.com/columnists/billmurchison/2012/12/25/...bork.../full/ www.nbcnews.com/.../bill-would-undo-bork-inspired-video...