Bork: An Explanation For Anything
Shorter Megan McArdle: “The Republicans can hardly be blamed for engaging in hostage-taking over the debt ceiling. After all, in 1987 a bipartisan majority rejected a Supreme Court nominee with views so unpopular no subsequent Republican nominee has been willing to defend them in a clean, timely up-or-down vote. Damn the Democrats for starting the tit-for-tat game!”
Is there anything that can’t be blamed on the failure of the Bork nomination? I expect to see it used as an explanation for Bush’s decision to go to Iraq soon.
…Cole has more. I actually trace the roots of Washington incivility to the Chase impeachment.
Bork is a central part of conservative litany of the martyrs, a central rite of the cult of victomology.
Bork got a “straight up or down vote” and lost. Six Republicans voted against him. I’m at a bit of a loss as to how that makes him a victim of anything. Further, if you look at the positions he’s taken over the subsequent years, it’s difficult to regard his rejection as anything but a good thing. Victimology, mythology… let’s not look at the facts.
Jag ska få dig
min vackra och,
din lilla hund också ….
Börk, börk, börk!
And no link?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qj8PhxSnhg
Well Bork actually is to blame for all subsequent scotus nominees never having a public opinion on anything.
I would say that’s more due to subsequent SCOTUS nominees being cowards who consider undermining an important confirmation process more important than getting their next job than due to anything else.
Murc, that is my point also. I just made it in a more confusing manner.
You meant “less important” I presume.
Yes I did.
Me fail English? That’s unpossible!
For the longest time, judicial nominees usually didn’t submit themselves to questions during staged confirmation hearings.
Judicial nominees actually do say something during their hearings. They avoid certain things, obviously, but actually the hearings now still give you more than traditionally, where the nominees didn’t say much at all.
Ah yes, Robert Bork! Remember how the Democrat’s in the Senate used secret holds to prevent the nomination from proceeding? No? Well how about the way the Democrats refused to allow hearings? No? Well how about the way the Democrats abused the filibuster to prevent a vote by the full Senate? What? you don’t remember that either? Maybe that’s because none of those things ever happened.
Instead, there were several days of open hearings, with many witnesses speaking both for and against the Bork nomination, followed by a public vote by the entire Senate, at which time the nomination was defeated.
Yes. It was the worst example of dirty tricks in the entire history of the United States Senate. I still have nightmares. This will excuse all Republican misbehavior for all eternity.
Now, the filibuster of Abe Fortas, that was good, old-fashioned clean politics!
Republicans don’t filibuster. We have always been at war with, I mean it has always taken 60 votes to win a Senate vote.
Bork was a genuine extremist — not just a DC-kabuki one.
The ‘outrage’ of his rejection is just one of the many eventheliberalnewrepublic-style myths that really, really need to die.
See also the (prospective) Nixon impeachment justifying the Clinton impeachment and all future impeachments of Democratic Presidents, no matter how absurd the charges.
Is there anything that can’t be blamed on the failure of the Bork nomination?
Porn on the internet. That is, not its consumption by Robert Bork, but rulings on its legality from Robert Bork.
The Senate Judiciary Committee’s rejection of Bork on October 6 led directly to the stock market crash two weeks later. Pass it on to Ms. McArdle.
I read a law journal article by Bork of his views on porn. He doesn’t think it is a 1st Am violation to ban not just porn but any indecent speech even between adults. This includes saying “fuck” and worst of all, naked boobies! The man truly is a monster.
To be clear, limited to movies and magazines and so on. The internet was not yet an issue.
Is there anything that can’t be blamed on the failure of the Bork nomination?
The Thirty Years War had nothing to do with the failure of Bork’s nomination.
The Bork hearings could have used more defenestration.
The GOBP in general could use lots more defenestration.
Your failure to mention the Hundred Years War is telling.
I’d also remind people of this little incident:
On October 20, 1973 Solicitor General Bork was instrumental in the “Saturday Night Massacre”, U.S. President Richard Nixon’s firing of Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, following Cox’s request for tapes of his Oval Office conversations. Nixon initially ordered U.S. Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, to fire Cox. Richardson resigned rather than carry out the order. Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus considered the order “fundamentally wrong” and also resigned, making Bork the Acting Attorney General. When Nixon reiterated his order, Bork complied and fired Cox.
Some people would argue that Bork revealed that he put some mix of his own career advancement, political preferences, and belief in an executive unlimited by law over his oath to enforce the law. Some people might view that characteristic as indicating that he did not belong on the Supreme Court.
Seriously, it is really annoying the conservatives and Republicans are still whining about this particular judicial nomination over 20 years later, BUT it’s even more annoying that they don’t show any willingness to acknowledge the many reasons that the Senate did not approve his nomination. Moreover, I honestly never hear anyone explain how Bork would have been a better Justice than Justice Kennedy.
a better Justice than Justice Kennedy
Chappaquidi–oh wait.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/02/us/bork-irked-by-emphasis-on-his-role-in-watergate.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm
I’m not sure, whatever one’s stance on his actions, they showed a “belief in an executive unlimited by law.” The ability of Nixon to fire Cox doesn’t mean he could do anything.
It is often not noted that Stevens was on record supporting the nomination. In the recent Stevens bio, ironically, it was noted that Bork was bothered by the endorsement, since he didn’t think it was appropriate.
His overall views, not his role in the “SNM” alone is what properly led the Senate to reject the nomination. Joe Biden in his book also has a good discussion of the hearings, including how the right to privacy was key.
I was engaging in a touch of hyperbole, but I would say that Bork’s vision (as revealed by many things, including the firing of Cox) fails to put sufficient, meaningful limits on the executive. That’s the more nuanced description of what the phrase was meant to convey.
I agree that Bork’s overall views were the strongest and major reason for rejection of the appointment.
Nonetheless, his conduct in the SNM may, alone, have justified the rejection. Being appointed to the Supreme Court is a privilege, not a right. A person’s performance in prior appointments should inform the decision. Bork decided to fire the prosecutor who was specifically tasked with reviewing the lawfulness of the Executive’s actions because the Executive objected to the prosecutor’s subpoenas investigating those actions. I can see why both Richardson and Ruckelshaus viewed that action as inconsistent with their job as Attorney General, which is to ensure the enforcement of the law and the administration of justice. Of course, to form a fully versed opinion on the issue, I would need to know all the details of the investigation and the dispute regarding Cox’s conduct. However, based on my current knowledge, I would be inclined to say that Richardson and Ruckelshaus were correct.
I’m not yet persuaded by Bork’s position that his decision was consistent with his duties, and in this context, I would say the potential Justice should bear the burden of persuasion.
In any event, congressmen legitimately may have concluded that his actions were inconsistent with his duties and that his decision revealed that he lacked the kind of judgment and character that we desire in a Justice. It drives me crazy that conservatives are still upset about this appointment but that they never acknowledge how truly extraordinary the nomination was. Reagan made the decision to try to place this man in the Supreme Court, and given his prior conduct (not to mention his public positions), OF COURSE that decision lead to a major controversy.
I was “there” (not actually, but an adult nearly 30, and I immersed myself in the whole thing). It was a scary night.
I knew Elliot Richardson (not well). An old-fashioned rock-ribbed, totally, painfully ethical New England Republican, a species now extinct. It was a big mistake for Nixon (or whoever made the decision) to nominate Richardson as AG. I guess they thought they could manipulate and dominate him. He and Ruckelshaus did exactly the right thing.
When Nixon appointed Richardson, he also gave the AG authority to appoint the special counsel (Cox). So, theoretically, Cox was an administration official and the president could fire him.
So, at least in legal theory, Nixon could fire Cox. As an ethical or political move, of course, it was a big, big loser, and helped turn the country against him. But Bork was legally correct.
That doesn’t excuse Bork’s other Neanderthal views (apologies to Neanderthals).
I honestly never hear anyone explain how Bork would have been a better Justice than Justice Kennedy.
Casey.
Well, yes, but if they admit that up front, then they can hardly argue that it was improper for the Democrats and moderate Republicans to reject him, and they have to acknowledge that Senator Kennedy’s criticism of him was largely accurate.
Well, that explains how Bork would have been a worse justice. If you support Bork’s views over Kennedy’s, which some (wrong-minded) people do, yes, you would think Bork would be a better justice.
You know that much vaunted short memory of the American public? The response to the Bork nomination demonstrated that while we do soon forget, we forget some things sooner than others.
The Saturday night massacre, and his part in it, was not soon forgotten. The street corner demonstrations in opposition to Bork were everywhere. It was a case of elected representatives responding to their constituency. Something you don’t see much of any more.
Bork was an non-kabuki extremist during a more moderate era. His nomination was an injudicious one (ha ha). The inmates had just taken over the asylum, and were feeling their oats. They could easily have nominated an equally rabid extremist, but one in sheep’s clothing (a lesson they learned well). They chose to explicitly retaliate against those who had slain their spiritual leader, then suffering ignoble exile in San Clemente. Bork had recently performed yeoman’s work in the Trickster’s name, by firing a special prosecutor who had been hot on President’s trail. That loyal service had been noted. Bork understood, and bided his time while waiting on the political tide. He also had (and has) a big mouth, and that more sensible political generation knew him well. The majority thereupon voted him down and out, and they voted well doing so.
According to Wiki, Bork also contemplated resigning on that Saturday night, but Richardson and Ruckelshaus talked him out of it.
I had never seen that before (and I read voraciously about Watergate), and I’m not sure I believe it.
It also does not sound rational to me. Richardson and Ruckelshaus both thought that the order was so improper that they had to resign, but they then decided it was proper to talk Bork out of resigning himself?
Someone had to run the store.
I’m skeptical of that argument though: Every time the Executive switches parties, the agencies trundle along with career people acting in various positions until the new appointments come in. Moreover, if everyone had kept refusing to do the order, Nixon might have stopped at some point. If he really desperately needed a politically appointed AG, then he might have stopped trying to interfere with the investigation.
I’d just like to see some actual sourcing of this conversation, because it sounds weird to me. Not impossible, but pretty strange.
The footnote does not support the assertion. A common practice among those who would rewrite history.
It was the middle of a crisis; not a good time to “trundle along” with fifth ranked person or something.
Bork was a respected official who was not on principle against firing Cox as a matter of executive power. It’s credible that the two thought he should remain as acting AG until a new one could be appointed.
It is also credible that Bork wasn’t really serious about quitting, it being in effect a skin deep statement which the two realized. I too would like to know more about the details, which some other account of the era probably covered.
Hey, Megan actually does blame the GOP this time, catching flak from some of her commenters. The Bork aside was of course gratuitous and irrelevant, but she couldn’t help herself.
I have to wonder if the rise of “Borking” in part comes because Robert Bork has a silly name which is well suited to being turned into a verb. Certainly the Bork hearings were a major event in political history, but the fact that his name sounds funny makes it a lot easier to spin neologisms out of it, and silly neologisms in turn make it easier to be blustery about it.
Actually Dems should appropriate the verb “bork”, and insist that all of Obama’s nominees be “borked”: i.e., get an up-or-down vote.
Names can mean much. “Heil Schicklegruber” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
I went to Harvard with a guy named “Rob Bork” (no relation).
At the time of the hearings, a lot of folks apparently assumed that Judge Bork must be from Harvard (in fact, he had no Harvard background), so they sent political love letters and hate mail to “Robert Bork, Harvard University,” all of which were received, with considerably amusement, by Rob Bork.
[...] Bork: An Explanation For Anything: Scott Lemieux [...]
And, somewhere in the Beyond, LBJ and Abe Fortas crack open another bottle and have a giggle.
McCardle should’ve went with FDR’s court-packing scheme to hold SCOTUS hostage. Basically, find the New Deal constitutional or the Judicial branch becomes a twig off the executive one.
It may be too far back but its more relevant to the debt, since it gave us Social Security which led to Medicare. S&P mentions this timebomb in their downgrade.
You mean the court packing scheme that failed?
And that required congressional approval, which it seemed very unlikely to get?