Judge Bork is of the caliber to be a Cheif Justice. He succinctly dissects every possible facet of the liberal/collectivist argument of each controversial issue. I personally challenge anyone to debate Bork. I respect the man and this book taught much about history and about our political and judicial systems today. A must read, particulary as a balance for widespread liberal press coverage. Very educational and concise and short book.

I haven't read the book yet but I feel compelled to balance out "a reader" who offers only one star and asserts that "misinformation abounds" by stating that Bork "misstates the legal issue surrounding the case".

Do you know what "abounds" means? One example in 176 pages hardly counts.
I might add the reviewer never actually says what Bork has got wrong. I trust that most prospective readers are smart enough to ignore this kind of drivel from an obviously partisan individual and make their own minds up.

Whether or not one agrees with Robert Bork's opinions (I do as they are in the Goldwater libertarian vein) he has never been one to opine without an intellectual basis. The book uses a phrase that aptly describes the situation: lifestyle socialism. This is not legislating morality from the bench. Instead, it is forcing upon society, through judicial fiat, minority ideas that would never succeed in the proper law-making body (Congress). A long list comes to mind: Banning the Scouts, burning the flag, the war against religious references and symbols, abortion on demand, busing for enforced equality (an oxymoron), prisoner's rights (quote unquote), suing for lack of responsibility such as smoking or overeating.

He explains persuasively that this did not occur overnight but was a result of several factors - the monolithic leftism of academia, the one-world view of the major media and how one case of activism encourages others. Bork also explains not only the decisions but also the motives behind these decisions. As he has written and stated, frequently these are not conscious decisions but instead are responses to an anticipated reaction. Judges, like all people, respond to praise and comdemnation. They win accolades from society's elite - academia, NPR, CNN, Wash Post, Times, Hollywood - if they rule a certain way. They are also aware of the consequences of displeasing these groups. Once the Left realized its agenda would not advance in the legislature they turned to the courts.

The scariest part, and one that he alludes to, is what happens when people draw the line, when they say "that's enought"? We always been a nation of laws but paradoxically the relentless assault from the bench by those who legislate rather than judge will ultimately lead to a reduction of their power. Israel and Canada, two examples in his book, are close to reaching that point. He is not optimistic but not a complete pessimist. The book is not weightt, an easy read for the knowledgable layman.

Bork's conservative politics are readily apparent in his writing, but his legal arguments are logical and apolitical. Hopefully this book will remind conservatives and liberals alike of the importance of proper legislative process. Bork argues that constitutional and international laws have become political tools with which judges impose "new class" political outcomes. Judges in different countries, interpreting different constitutions (or no constitution at all) signed and ratified at different times, representing different political and legal cultures, come to the same conclusion: the law requires judges to implement liberal political outcomes. Bork's case is pretty airtight.

The best chapter is on international law as it pertains to military affairs. His argument is devastating, and changed the way I look at the UN and other internationl bodies.