lawrocket 3 #1 December 19, 2012 85 years old. Over the past few elections, I hear quite often about “such and such isn’t qualified. So and so doesn’t have the experience or knowledge necessary to be xxx.” Then I think of Bork – eminently qualified for the job of SCOTUS justice. It’s a showing that qualifications in the political arena don’t mean shit. “Unqualified” has become What happened to Bork with his nomination was, to me, unprecedented. He ended up resigning his position from the appeals court afterward, as he was understandably bitter about his treatment at the hands of the political process. “To Bork” actually became a verb reflecting use of political process and media to vilify a person to preclude public office. Indeed, there has been a suggestion that Susan Rice’s nomination for Secretary of State was withdrawn because she was being “borked” or would be “borked.” I do not agree with all that Bork believed – I think that he had a rather leftist view on individual liberties (he viewed orderly society as more important than individual rights). However, I also believe that he caused people to take a greater look at the text of the Constitution. His nomination and fight led to a greater understanding (at leas on my part) that the Constitution is what it is and not always what we wish it was. Rest in Peace, Robert Bork. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 906 #2 December 19, 2012 Whatever will the Simpson's do now? Nice comments Jerry, I respected him as well. Some times. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #3 December 19, 2012 From the reprobate Ted Kennedy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNaasFvvFlE Just like the elevation of John Roberts was going to result in the "streets running red the the blood of women". Reagan should have stuck with him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #4 December 19, 2012 QuoteReagan should have stuck with him. He did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 385 #5 December 19, 2012 He was certainly an interesting character, and made valuable contributions to his fields of law. However, I think he would have been an unmitigated disaster as a supreme court judge, and had he been confirmed I think his legacy would have been an America that was totally changed, and not for the better. You characterize his views on individual liberties as "leftist"; I would consider them to be fascist. He believed that "free speech" referred to in the 1st amendment applied only to political speech; in all other aspects he felt the principle duty of government was to maintain order. To that extent, he wrote in favor of severe censorship of music, movies, teaching of evolution, and anything else that could upset the existing social order. Needless to say, music/art/etc that conformed to his tastes would be all that would be available for the rest of us to "enjoy". Here in his own words is his thinking on "freedom of speech": “Constitutional protection should be accorded only to speech that is explicitly political. There is no basis for judicial intervention to protect any other form of expression, be it scientific, literary, or that variety of expression we call obscene or pornographic. Moreover, within that category of speech we ordinarily call political, there should be no constitutional obstruction to laws making criminal any speech that advocates forcible overthrow of the government or the violation of any law.” He dismissed the 9th amendment as an "inkblot", where "original intent" was unknowable and therefore the amendment meaningless. That view was also reflected in his response to Griswold v. Connecticut, the case in which the supreme court struck down laws banning the use of contraceptives, even by married couples, where Bork wrote: “No activity that society thinks immoral is victimless. Knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral.” In Bork's America, the "majority" should be able to impose their moral choices on the "minority", even in personal matters between consenting adults, such as use of contraceptives. I could go on, but those two examples serve to illustrate that our freedoms would have been drastically diminished had Bork's view been allowed to dominate the Supreme Court. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #6 December 19, 2012 Quote had he been confirmed I think his legacy would have been an America that was totally changed, and not for the better. I think we see that now with the complete expansion of federal powers. QuoteYou characterize his views on individual liberties as "leftist"; I would consider them to be fascist. I consider anybody who would put individual liberties on the backburner to orderly society to have those leanings. See discussions on mental health, gun control and due process rights. QuoteHe believed that "free speech" referred to in the 1st amendment applied only to political speech; in all other aspects he felt the principle duty of government was to maintain order. Indeed. I didn’t like that about him. turns out he has a lot of agreement on all sides. For example, I have little doubt that he would have dissented in Citizen’s United and agreed with our President that, you know, there’s just too much free speech out there. QuoteTo that extent, he wrote in favor of severe censorship of music, movies, teaching of evolution, and anything else that could upset the existing social order. Sure. The left does it, too. Google “nativity scene litigation” and “Westboro Baptist Church” and “hate speech.” Same thing, different topics. Why I don’t like Democrats or Republicans. QuoteHe dismissed the 9th amendment as an "inkblot", In any review of jurisprudence, he is correct. It’s become as important as the 3rd Amendment – never invoked. So nobody knows what the heck it means! serve an important purpose as a basis to prevent the government from abusing the rights of citizens. I believe that the 9th was therefore intended to limit the intepretation of federal powers and rights, which is why the 9th went hand-in-hand with the 10thAmendment, which preserved self-governance of the states. Both worked hand-in-hand to allow the states to give more rights to its citizens than the Constitution gave. Regardless, the 9th is an inkblot. Nobody knows what it means. And due to the 14th Amendment and the expansion of the commerce clause and taxing clause nobody will ever know what it meant. It’s a vestige. QuoteIn Bork's America, the "majority" should be able to impose their moral choices on the "minority", even in personal matters between consenting adults, such as use of contraceptives. Indeed. It’s why I link him with those who want to ban corporate speech and guns and etc. QuoteI could go on, but those two examples serve to illustrate that our freedoms would have been drastically diminished had Bork's view been allowed to dominate the Supreme Court. I don’t think the freedoms would be more diminished than now. I think that different freedoms would have been diminished. As always, you make a fine discussion. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #7 December 20, 2012 He didn't help himself by "firing" Archibold Cox during Watergate.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #8 December 20, 2012 Rush Limbaugh paid Robert Bork a tribute in his closing remarks yesterday, 19 Dec. Rush believes Ted Kennedy's attack on Bork set the standard for successful character assassination used by the left up through the last presidential election.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #9 December 20, 2012 Don't kid yourself that character assassination is only a tool of the left. Both sides do the same dirty tricks. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #10 December 20, 2012 QuoteDon't kid yourself that character assassination is only a tool of the left. Both sides do the same dirty tricks. Only one side is the evil enemy.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #11 December 20, 2012 We have seen the enemy, and he is us. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #12 December 20, 2012 That's Limbaugh. Character attacks have always occurred. But what happened to Bork was so vicious and massive that no word existed to describe it. So "Borked" became a word. I think that even Democrats looked back and thought they took it too far. Kinda like all the 60's and 70's assholes spitting on troops when they came back from Vietnam. Even those who did the spitting look back with shame. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #13 December 20, 2012 >Rush believes Ted Kennedy's attack on Bork set the standard for successful >character assassination used by the left up through the last presidential election. Nowadays that is referred to as "swiftboating." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #14 December 20, 2012 The "swiftboating" thing isn't even close, Bill. And this wasn't a popular election but a senate confirmation hearing. Note: take a look at the elections of 1828 and 1800 to see what nastiness used to be like. We're really rather tame today in terms of hateful partisan vitriol. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #15 December 20, 2012 Quote We're really rather tame today in terms of hateful partisan vitriol. but not for lack of trying ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
