Bork was the guy who said there was no such thing as a right to privacy. He also said it was OK for the government to restrict _married_
couples' access to birth control. He said it was OK for a
company to require its female employees to agree to be sterilized if they wanted
to keep their jobs. When Richard Nixon tried to fire the Watergate
Special Prosecutor, the Attorney General resigned rather than carry out that
unconstitutional abuse of power, and so did the Assistant Attorney General. But
Bork was #3 in line and he fired Archibald Cox in the middle of the
invistigation into Nixon's well-documented, egregious and dangerous
criminal behavior. The fact that he is revered as an icon of
conservatism mystifies me.
DN is right to say that some people are judged unfairly based on one or two
incidents which may not be characteristic of their entire lives. But
I'm not sure that Bork is one of those. When his nomination to the Supreme
Court failed (opposed by senators of both parties), Bork simply took his beliefs
public and spent the remainder of his life as a well-paid conservative activist.
That's legal, but it ended up revealing what Bork's views REALLY were,
instead of what he tried to convince the Senate of in 1987.
[Robert Bork had two such encounters — one when he carried out President
Richard Nixon's order to fire the special prosecutor in the Watergate
case]He was just following orders, right? That excuse didn't
work at the Nuremberg trials, either. It showed the kind of person he was:
middle-management and complacent.[Bork said his nomination ordeal
would lead to a time when future nominees would have to be people who had
published little and had no opinions.]Or people without such
reprehensible opinions.[Bork's real contributions, however, far
outweigh those crude political attacks.]He had few significant
contributions, because he was luckily kept out of the Supreme Court.
Amen to Blue and Mark B. This editorial suggest that Bork was refused
nomination because of "fleeting" issues. They were hardly fleeting DN
and why did you omit the well known issue of his decision permitting termination
unless female empoyees would agree to become sterilizied? Ank, okay why did
that corporation not require males to be sterilized? No, Bork had a fair
hearing and was appropriatly rejected. But he should have applied for a
position on the Editorial Staff of the DN. He surely would have been
appreciated in that position.
In a Meridian Magazine article in 2009 speaking of the "Culture Wars"
Bork said, "It will be important to make cultural alliances
across religious lines. Orthodox Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, and Jews have
more in common on cultural matters than they do with liberal members of their
own faiths."His first assumption, that one cannot be politically
liberal and be orthodox in their reilgious faith, is short sighted and
offensive. His overall premise of driving a wedge between members of the same
religion, for nothing more than his political agenda is even quite threatening.
Shame on Judge Bork for stating it and on Meridian Magazine for
giving him the vehicle to make such a bigoted statement.
Mike in Cedar City:[No, Bork had a fair hearing and was appropriatly
rejected. But he should have applied for a position on the Editorial Staff of
the DN. He surely would have been appreciated in that position.]High
@MukkakeBork was never rejected,He nomination never got
out of comittee, forcing Reagan to withdraw him.The democrat
controlled senate never did their constitutional duediligence and allow a
vote.Although, if Bork has fought for it, he could forced a vote,
and probably won because the no legitimate reason to not vote for him.He was certainly no worse, and no more radical, than the Obama
nominations.It was result of Democrat shenanigans on this nomination
that we have gotten the bad judges we have now, with little track record, and
who say almost nothing about how they judge during nomination, and have no
interest in actually following the constitution.
the truth:[He nomination never got out of comittee, forcing Reagan to
withdraw him. The democrat controlled senate never did their constitutional
duediligence and allow a vote. Although, if Bork has fought for it, he could
forced a vote, and probably won because the no legitimate reason to not vote for
him]Wrong, he lost the committee, waited for the full vote, and was
rejected there, too. So obviously there were plenty of reasons not to vote for
Bork is a constitutional scholar certainly but some of his
"interpretations" were scary and there is no way to sugar coat that.
Lest we forget, the intentions of the Founding Fathers were not as benign and
righteous as orginalist supporters would have us believe. Constitutional
originalism was used to conclude women and minorities should not have the rights
they do now. It's amazing how the author simply fails to mention those
issues regarding Bork. He was a rigid dinosaur who was rightly rejected for a
seat on SCOTUS.
Probably the best and most qualified person to be nominated in the last century.
Compare this man to the people nominated by Obama. We will look back one
day and shall see that the Democrats began the downfall of this nation with
their lies and strategy on Judge Bork. No longer was it possible to work
together. We can no longer put the country first. The voter ID issue is a
prime example. All logical people understand that we must stamp out voter
fraud or face the prospect that our elections will have no credibility.
Democrats will not support anything that might stop voter fraud. Honesty is
gone...who can we really believe?
Wayne, it would seem that you are suffering a bout of amnesia regarding the
eight years that George W. held the reins.
@MukkakeIt doesn't matter what the resulting vote in committee
is. It is just a recommendation of the committee.The constitutional
requirement is the for the senate to give an up or down vote on nominations.It is sad how the democrats have destroyed the nomination process. Now
we can never have good nomination again.And all because the
democrats refusal to give Bork a nomination vote.We now have live
with horrible radical unqualified nominations of Obama. Though, I blame the
republicans more for not fighting harder against them. On the other had they
atleast followed the constitution ans allowed the nominations a vote
To the truth 6:35 p.m. Dec. 22, 2012Your allegation that "the
democrats refusal to give Bork a nomination vote" is not the truth. Bork
had an up-down vote in the Senate. He lost, the vote being 58-42 with the help
of a half-dozen Republicans who joined all but two Democrats in voting against
him.Bork was a radical far right extremist ideologue (see the
comments describing his positions above for full particulars). The country was
well-served by the vote denying him a seat on the US Supreme Court.
Now all you Democrats need to stifle yourselves. You had the perfect
opportunity and blew it. Had Bork been voted on the Supreme Court, Obama would
now be nominating a replacement justice thereby changing the balance of the
court and the conservatives would be in the minority full time. In
this case, I'm glad Ted Kennedy screwed up that bad. He wasn't the
brightest bulb in the building and his demagogery of one of the most qualified
people to come along, was just plain not right. Bork was characterized as a
right wing extreamest. Based on his being right wing, the Republicans should
have stuffed Sotomayer, Kagen, and Ginsburg. All left wing idealoges.
Especially Kagen who shouldn't even be on the Supreme Court.So
way to go Democrats, blame yourselves. Oh and Durwood, quite blaming Bush. He
hasn't been president for four years. Time to get off of that bandwagon.