I nominate Robert Bork

Ever since I read his book The Tempting of America, 1990; The Free Press I have had a tremendous amount of respect for Robert Bork. His understanding of Judicial History and his commitment to understanding the "original intent" of the founding fathers is unquestionably remarkable. Recently he was interviewed on CNN and once again made some very necessary points about what will transpire this summer in the confirmation process of a Supreme Court Justice. Interview on CNN

I have written elsewhere that the Constitution is a good place to start reading. In black and white you can find most of the answers to questions that people will ask or avoid asking. Robert Bork doesn't waver in the above interview and cuts through the political rhetoric. Moderate; Conservative; Liberal...blah,blah,blah the necessary question is how the jurist [nominee] understands the role of a Justice. Are they going to read things into the Constitution that are not there? Are they going to look to the legal systems outside the US for the way in which to adjudicate matters of US Law? Are they going to lick there fingers and check to see which way the "US culture" feels at the moment and rule thusly? If that is the way you think they should rule just a couple of questions...

Would you be comfortable if the Supreme Court consulted Iraqi Law in order to judge a domestic violence case?

Would you agree as the Supreme Court did in the Dred Scott case that because it was "normal and acceptable" in US culture that slaves were 3/5ths of a human and other had the legal right to own slaves?

Please go read the Constitution and ask yourself. Is this document going to be the rule of law that I want followed or should we rewrite it and start the whole thing over. I already know my answer. Originalist.