(Link gotten from the URL list.)
Pat Robertson interviewed Robert Bork on October 6. The interview appeared on the website for the Christian Broadcasting Network (it's a transcript of a 700 Club appearance). That and the fact of Pat Robertson will indicate that this wasn't exactly the most objective interview ever held.
Bork was shilling for a new book he's got out that seems to be about law and judges, and what he doesn't like about them. Robertson was his usual self. There was much talk about the Liberal Agenda and religion and what the two have to do with each other (the one hates the other, basically). Much discussion of the Constitution and what's in it and what isn't.
Pat Robertson: Where does the Supreme Court come off saying that homosexuality is a constitutional right? And to think that a staunch Catholic, Kennedy, wrote that decision.
Part of Bork's answer was "One of the really terribly disturbing features of the Supreme Court...is that they are making up constitutional rights that are nowhere in the Constitution." There's a basic problem with this argument, and that is this: there is a huge number of things not mentioned in the constitution that people nevertheless take as their right to do or practice. Carpentry, for one. Horseback riding. Standing on a street corner doing mime shit for money. The list goes on and on. There's no constitutional right to heterosexual sex either, but never mind.
It all comes back down to religion. Christian fundies don't like something, so they want a law against it, and they'll scream as loud as they can until either they get it, or they get smacked down. Bork says at one point (paraphrasing here) that a strict separation of church and state is contrary to the Constitution's original meaning. This isn't exactly true: the first part of the amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which certainly, from a logic standpoint, means the state and the church should not become affiliated with each other. I.e., they should be separate. The problem with that is that it has to do with logic, and there is no logic being displayed by either people in the interview. Witness Robertson's remark about Kennedy and that decision (it being Lawrence v. Texas, I'm guessing). Kennedy was able to separate his church from his state, whereas Robertson is incapable of it (and doesn't want to, anyway). You get the feeling Robertson would be happiest in a theocracy.
What it all comes back down to, really, is intolerance. Not just intolerance of various practices (eg homosexuality) or beliefs (eg any other religion but their own), but also an intolerance of tolerance. Robertson and his ilk, of which Bork seems to be one, can't stand seeing other people accepting things they (Robertson) don't like, so those people get denigrated along with whatever they're accepting.
I could go on and on about Robertson and co.'s intolerance and arrogance and hypocrisy and such, but this'll be too long and it's been said before, so I'll stop. One thing I will say, though, is that this interview probably highlights pretty well what sort of court justice Bork would have been.
One other last thing: the piece is entitled "Power Grab"... I mentioned hypocrisy already, didn't I?
