Meaning: This quote by Robert Bork, a prominent legal scholar and judge, addresses the contentious issue of the role of Congress in potentially altering the interpretation of constitutional provisions. Bork's viewpoint emphasizes the importance of judicial review and the potential consequences of allowing legislative bodies to influence the interpretation of the Constitution.

In this quote, Bork asserts that the idea of Congress being able to change the meaning of a constitutional provision as interpreted by the Court is "subversive of the function of judicial review." This concept refers to the principle that courts have the authority to review and potentially invalidate laws or governmental actions that are found to be unconstitutional. Judicial review is a fundamental aspect of the separation of powers in the United States, ensuring that the judiciary serves as a check on the actions of the legislative and executive branches.

Bork's concern about Congress altering the meaning given to a constitutional provision by the Court reflects the potential threat to the integrity of judicial review. By suggesting that Congress could influence the Court's interpretation, Bork implies that the balance of power between the branches of government could be disrupted, potentially undermining the Court's role as an independent arbiter of constitutional matters.

Furthermore, Bork highlights that the Court's willingness to allow changes in interpretation when the Constitution is "moved to the left" is particularly troubling. This statement suggests that Bork perceives a risk of politicization of the judiciary, where ideological shifts could influence the Court's decisions and interpretations. The implication is that allowing Congress to influence constitutional interpretation, especially in a manner that aligns with a particular political direction, could compromise the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

It is important to understand the context in which Bork made this statement. Robert Bork was a controversial figure in legal and political circles, particularly due to his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987, which ultimately failed to be confirmed by the Senate. Bork's views on constitutional interpretation, originalism, and judicial restraint were central to the debate surrounding his nomination. His perspective on the limits of congressional influence on constitutional interpretation reflects his commitment to a particular approach to judicial decision-making.

This quote encapsulates Bork's concerns about the potential consequences of allowing Congress to impact the Court's interpretation of the Constitution. It underscores the broader debate about the separation of powers, the role of the judiciary, and the potential impact of political considerations on legal decision-making. Bork's perspective continues to be influential in discussions about the proper role of the judiciary and the potential risks associated with allowing political influences to shape constitutional interpretation.

In conclusion, Robert Bork's quote raises important questions about the balance of power between the branches of government, the role of judicial review, and the potential implications of allowing Congress to influence the Court's interpretation of the Constitution. It reflects ongoing debates about the independence and integrity of the judiciary, as well as the impact of political considerations on legal decision-making. Bork's perspective continues to be relevant in discussions about constitutional law and the separation of powers in the United States.