In 1987, during his Supreme Court Justice nomination hearings, Judge Robert Bork said (starting at 03:40):
“I cite to you the Legal Tender Cases. Scholarship suggests — these are extreme examples, admittedly — scholarship suggests that the Framers intended to prohibit paper money. Any judge who today thought he would go back to the original intent, really ought to be accompanied by a guardian rather than be sitting on a bench.“
Ironically, he was deemed to be too conservative, and a right-wing judicial activist by his top detractors like Senator Joe Biden and Senator Ted Kennedy.
This demonstrates that even so-called originalist and conservative judges don’t intend to uphold their oath of office when it’s politically difficult to do so, and why change needs to come externally.
Allow me to inquire: Just ~how external~ is your ‘external?’
Regarding Bork himself, what raised my eyebrows and sounded the klaxons was his statement that there was no such thing as a ‘right to privacy.’
For my money, we are born with every human natural right, and no government has any authority to trammel upon those rights without a good solid, and valid reason, being predicate to stopping an imminent danger or threat to someone else’s live, liberty, and/or property.
What do you mean by how external is my external in the context of my post?
As for Bork, did he say no such thing as a right to privacy, or no constitutional right to privacy?
Indeed, the idea that Judges will get us out of this hole is just silly.