re, is that the Supreme Court has the power to legalize actions or policies that do not reflect the will of the majority in a country that calls itself democratic. However, he is also arguing that the specific actions or policies that are being legalized and which should not be are those that reflect a leftist position. Nowhere in his article does he argue the possibility that the democratic majority may also not be represented by judicial decisions reflecting an extremely conservative or right-wing position.
Nonetheless, Bork seems willing to put his own beliefs to the same test as those closer to the left than himself. He states that the only way to curb the Supreme Court's awesome and unintended power is to draft a constitutional amendment that makes Supreme Court rulings subject to democratic review (Bork 48). These he believes will prevent the Court from "slowly disintegrating the basis for our social unity" (Bork 48). What Bork is saying here is that the Supreme Court's decisions are alienating the majority in its vigor to protect the minority. Consequently, they are creating tension in society between the now apparently voiceless majority and the increasingly vocal minority.
Bork argues against the Supreme Court's rulings and power because he believes it is weakening the country's political authority and the possibility of a common culture (Bork 48). For Bork, thi
...