talking about he was -- senator kennedy -- the robert bork's america speech avoided looking at this man's judicial record. instead refers to engage in a very personal attack intended to smear him and to ruin his public reputation so that he can be defeated because they know if they look at the record and make it a matter of a constitutional argument that bork is accessible and likely to be put on the court and they don't want to risk it for fear he is a vote against abortion. the same thing happened in the thomas hearing. these things happen and you look at it on the perspective of the right, here i am in austin but when you hear eric fleisher from white house podiums a people have to be careful when they say, you are not allowed to say you have differences about american foreign policy in terms of intervention in iraq, you are being told to shut up. >> i understand the argument. there's one thing in the front of the book where your dedication is dedicated to several groups including fox news, the dedication says standing tall in the face of speaking the truth is the heart of great

no less than a authority than judge robert bork made the following statement regarding that. he opposed the balanced budget constitutional amendment declaring, and i quote him, the result would likely be hundreds if not us thats of lawsuits around the country, many of them on inconsistent theories and providing inconsistent results. the celebrated late professor archie balanced cox of harvard law school predicted there is a substantial chance, even a strong probability that federal courts all over the country would be drawn into its interpretation and enforcement. and since my friend used president reagan, the former solicitor general to president reagan, professor charles prix, has testified an i quote, the amendment would surely precipitate us into subtle and intricate legal questions and the litigation that would ensue would be gruesome, intrusive, and not at all edified. the former attorney general to president george h.w. bush opined that judicial power could be invoked to address serious and clear-cut violations. the republican majority wants to hand off our constitutio

no less than a authority than judge robert bork made the following statement regarding that. he opposed the balanced budget constitutional amendment declaring, and i quote him, the result would likely be hundreds if not us thats of lawsuits around the country, many of them on inconsistent theories and providing inconsistent results. the celebrated late professor archie balanced cox of harvard law school predicted there is a substantial chance, even a strong probability that federal courts all over the country would be drawn into its interpretation and enforcement. and since my friend used president reagan, the former solicitor general to president reagan, professor charles prix, has testified an i quote, the amendment would surely precipitate us into subtle and intricate legal questions and the litigation that would ensue would be gruesome, intrusive, and not at all edified. the former attorney general to president george h.w. bush opined that judicial power could be invoked to address serious and clear-cut violations. the republican majority wants to hand off our constitutio