"Trying Out Ideas"

By David Beckwith

In a series of half a dozen conversations with TIME Correspondent David Beckwith over the past ten weeks, Bork has shown unusual candor in discussing his views on the major issues that will be raised at the hearings. Excerpts:

On judicial restraint: People on both sides are painting me as a conservative activist, predicting I'll do revolting or admirable things. It's not true. I simply believe in judicial restraint. An activist is somebody who tries to run his own preferences into the law. I either don't have them, or I keep them out.

On his changing philosophy: I've changed my mind in major ways through my life. I don't see anything wrong with it. That's the business I'm in -- trying to think things out. Most of the changes had nothing to do with confirmation hearings or anything other than honest intellectual effort. Some people say I'm closed-minded. Others criticize me for changing my mind. I find it all very unfortunate.

On the role of a judge: Liberal, moderate, conservative shouldn't apply to judging. The correct philosophy is to judge according to the intent of the / legislature or the intent of the Constitution's framers. Judges are overwhelmingly from a very narrow segment of society, and if they begin to read their own ideals into the law, then most of society isn't represented.

On school prayer: People have tried to read my mind on this because I've commented on the constitutional conflicts in some religion cases. The truth is that I don't know what I think about school prayer, because I've never stopped and thought the subject through.

On civil rights: I've always been against laws that discriminate. In the '60s, in my libertarian phase, I opposed what I considered government interference with individual liberty. I changed my mind on that and said so publicly in 1971. My thinking as a voter ever since is, Does the law do more good than harm? Civil rights laws meet that test.

On the 1973 abortion decision: I said before becoming a judge that I didn't think the case was decided on sound constitutional reasonings. There may be other grounds to justify the result. I'd be willing to listen for them, but I don't know what they are.

On his provocative writings: That's what academic writing is supposed to be all about -- daring and speculative and provocative, trying out ideas. You don't see that kind of writing in my professional work. In academic life, not much is at stake except whether your brain is working that day. But as a judge, you can't run counter to the conventional wisdom unless you're absolutely sure you're correct.

On White House advice in his confirmation battle: They told me to avoid interviews, but I've always talked to the press. I think it's important that debates about the law be understood by the public. In these things, I think you're better off being yourself.

On his political outlook: I don't think my present politics are important to anybody. I really don't have overwhelmingly strong views about most of these things we've talked about.