Some People Don't Know the Meaning of the Word 'Irony'

When Liberals post about being bamboozled (and don't realize who is actually being bamboozled).

Even More Liberal Hypocrisy

 

But of course, the Liberals will continue to call names unchecked.  They do not realize the basic hypocrisy of their actions.  

The Judicial Nominee Who Became a Verb: Bork

 This is the first in a series of essays written for my PolSci classes....

Judge Robert Bork had been an anti-trust attorney and a Yale law professor.  He served as Richard Nixon’s Solicitor General and was a federal appeals judge.  His published works (including those about welfare[1], legislative behavior[2], the First Amendment[3] and general Constitutional theory[4]) established him as a strict constitutionalist and he developed the idea of “original intent”; the Constitution was not open to interpretation, but rather should be strictly adhered to by judges.  

Nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, Robert Bork redefined how candidates for any federal judge’s robes handled themselves in confirmation hearings before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.  The conservative Bork’s nomination became intensely politicized, and aroused the ire of the left, expressed by protests and public outcry.  His dour appearance and matter-of-fact answers, coupled with his deeply held beliefs of strict interpretation of the Constitution helped create a firestorm of opposition in a matter of days.   Not only concerned with the traditional qualifications and competence, the Committee asked questions about Bork’s philosophy on justice and his many treatises on Constitutional matters.[5]   
 

Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts fired the first shot.  When the nomination of Bork was signaled by President Reagan, Kennedy said, “Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.”[6]  Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, chairman of the committee said, “I don’t have an open mind.  The reason I don’t is that I know this man.”[7]  These statements led to twelve days of contentious hearings and a final vote of 58-42 against Judge Bork.[8]

Robert Bork was nominated by a Republican president that had lost the advantage of a Senate majority.  Studies performed in 1990[9] and 1999[10] agreed that Supreme Court nominations succeed when a president’s nomination is politically agreeable to the Senate.  Judge Bork’s outspoken opinions, published works and philosophic views made him unpalatable to the Democratic Senate.  Soon after his nomination was announced, a heavily politicized public campaign against him raged as disparate groups found reason to protest the nomination.  

Today, judicial candidates are more wary of answering questions in both public interviews and in nomination hearings.  They are afraid of being “borked,” unable to allow such public scrutiny over their views and opinions.  However, they are also less likely to face the total war that Bork’s nomination became.  That single nomination brought about changes in how the Senate handles judicial nomination hearings, as well as public involvement in those proceedings. 

---

[1] Robert H. Bork, “The Impossibility of Finding Welfare Rights in the Constitution“, Washington University Law Quarterly 1979:695, http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4077&context=fss_papers

[2] Robert H. Bork, “Legislative Intent and the Policy of the Sherman Act”, The Journal of Law & Economics Vol. 9 (Oct., 1966), pp. 7-48 http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/stable/724991

[3] Robert H. Bork, “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems”, Indiana Law Journal 47 (1971-1972) 1-36  http://heinonline.org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/indana47&collection=journals&page=1

[4] Robert H. Bork, “Styles in Constitutional Theory”, South Texas Law Journal 26, 383-396 (1985)  http://heinonline.org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/stexlr26&start_page=383&id=391

[5]Laurence Arnold, “Robert Bork, Judge Defeated in Supreme Court War, Dies at 85” Bloomberg News December 19, 2012 — 12:04 PM CST http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-19/robert-bork-defeated-judge-whose-name-became-verb-dies-at-85

[6]Mark Sherman, ”Robert Bork Nomination Fight Altered Judicial Selection” Huffington Post / Associated Press 2/19/2012 03:38 pm ET  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/robert-bork-nomination_n_2332933.html

[7] Laurence Arnold, “Robert Bork, Judge Defeated in Supreme Court War, Dies at 85” Bloomberg News December 19, 2012 — 12:04 PM CST http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-19/robert-bork-defeated-judge-whose-name-became-verb-dies-at-85

[8] Ibid.

[9] Charles M. Cameron, Albert D. Cover and Jeffrey A. Segal.  “Senate Voting on Supreme Court Nominees: A Neoinstitutional Model”,  The American Political Science Review Vol. 84, No. 2 (Jun., 1990), pp. 525-534

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1963533  Accessed: 06-02-2016 02:39 UTC

[10] Bryon J. Moraski and Charles R. Shipan, “The Politics of Supreme Court Nominations: A Theory of Institutional Constraints and Choices”, American Journal of Political Science Vol. 43, No. 4 (Oct., 1999), pp. 1069-1095  http://www.jstor.org/stable/2991818  Accessed: 06-02-2016 02:37 UTC