E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe former U.S. Marine and Yale professor, became a conservative icon as a champion of judicial restraint. NBC's Brian Williams reports.
Robert Bork, the conservative judge and scholar whose 1987 nomination by President Ronald Reagan to the Supreme Court sparked an epic battle which has defined Senate judicial politics ever since, has died at age 85.
The Senate voted to reject Bork’s nomination by a vote of 58 to 42, with two Democrats voting for Bork and six Republicans opposing him.
Bork’s wife and some of his friends thought Reagan had not fought hard enough to win the nomination battle but Bork also damaged himself by coming across in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee as detached and professorial.
His defeat – the last time the Senate has rejected a Supreme Court nominee -- was an outcome that weakened Reagan, left conservatives bitter, and resulted ultimately in the nomination and confirmation of Judge Anthony Kennedy, whose sometimes liberal views have chagrined many Republicans.
Charles Tasnadi / AP file
FILE - In this Sept. 15, 1987 file photo, former President Gerald Ford, left, introduces Supreme Court Associate Justice nominee Robert Bork, as the Senate Judiciary Committee began confirmation hearings on the nomination on Capitol Hill. Ford praised Bork as being "uniquely qualified" for the post. At right is Sen. Robert Dole, R-KS, who also made a statement on Bork. Robert Bork, whose failed Supreme Court nomination made history, has died. (AP Photo/Charles Tasnadi)
Kennedy is still serving and is the high court’s swing vote.
In a statement Wednesday, Sen. Mike Lee, R- Utah, a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, said, "Despite the unfortunate and unnecessary controversy surrounding his Supreme Court nomination, Judge Bork remained an inspirational figure for those seeking to enforce constitutional limits on the federal government."
Within 45 minutes of Reagan’s announcement of Bork as his nominee to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of swing justice Lewis Powell, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D- Mass., went to the Senate floor to deliver a scathing assault on him. “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, school children could not be taught about evolution, writers and artist could be censured at the whim of government,” Kennedy said.
On abortion Bork had said that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion nationwide was “an unconstitutional decision, a serious and wholly unjustifiable judicial usurpation of state legislative authority.”
Bork also provoked opposition due to an article he’d written in 1963 criticizing what eventually became parts of the 1964 civil rights law that required racial integration of hotels, restaurants, and other businesses. While Bork did refer to what he called “the ugliness of racial discrimination,” he also wrote that a law requiring businesses to serve black people would too greatly infringe on the freedom of the individuals who owned the businesses.
Legal scholar and former federal judge Robert Bork, who is perhaps best known for his failed bid to be confirmed for the Supreme Court, has died at the age of 85. MSNBC's Chris Jansing reports.
Some Democrats also opposed Bork because as the third-ranking official in the Justice Department in 1973 he had fired Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor in the Watergate scandal, after the top two officials in the department, Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, resigned rather than carrying out President Richard Nixon’s order to dismiss Cox.
Playing a leading role is defeating Bork was the then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, an episode Biden recalled in his debate with GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin in 2008: “I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don't like and the American people wouldn't like, including everything from (overturning) Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties.”
After his nomination was defeated, Bork resigned from his post as a federal appeals court judge and began writing books which criticized American culture and the legal profession, such as his 2003 book “Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline,” and his 2005 book “A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values.”
Leave a Comment:
Robert Pork was the poster boy of the GOP..he is an excellent legal scholar and Yale Law Professor.
The Young Bill Clinton took a class with him and came away impressed. But Bork did have blind spot as many other conservtives do - he believed the poor should be condemned to their poor fate because they only have themselves to blame. So typical conservative nutcase.
So later during Bork's confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court, Clinton was called from Arkansas to testify during a hearing to oppose his appointment. I think John Kerry or Joe Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and called Gov. Clinton to testify against Bork.
Bork will forever be remembered for his willingness to talk about his detailed philosophy. Later nominees have refused
cont.
... later supreme court nominees have refused to do the same again because of Bork's failed nomination.
Also students of his - Hilliary Clinton, Anita Hill, Robert Reich, Jerry Brown. Just because you disagree with someone does not make them a nutcase, he was brilliant man , who was part of one of the more ugly smear campaigns ever- in a an Obituary on Kennedy the Economist magazine even wrote that what Kennedy famously said about Bork on the Senate floor was not true- but it worked.
So if you disagree with someone they are then a "typical conservative nutcase." You then must be a typical liberal knucklehead.
I got a tear in my ear from lying on my bed on my side crying over you.
I'm so glad this dude never made it to the supreme court.
I agree with what Bork said about being poor. I have been the poor. I worked my butt off and started making better choices with my money. No cell phone, no new car, no credit cards, nothing......You live within your means and you work on improving your means. It is not your neighbors job to do it for you.
The issue for Mr. Bork, and conservatives like him, is not the extremist position they take. Like Justice Scalia, they take a self-rightious, no holds barred, imperious attitude toward anyone who does not agree with them.
The battle against Bork has resulted in potential nominees to the court curbing their opinions so that there will be no writings or speeches available for use by any opposition.
As to Bork's death, as the old saying goes about any lawyer dying, its a start.
so he croaked - no big loss...
How MARVELOUS !
Just weeks after the GOP-RNC commits political suicide in a national election..
the posterboy for their ignorance & gluttony DIES, Limbaugh's make-believe DADDY is DEAD...
Shut down the country & declare a holiday ! so we can celebrate FREEDOM from governance by the neanderthals .
One thing that Bork did was add to our lexicography, "He was Borked!"
wow Fork and Fids I thought y'all were the party of tolerance? You're glad someone died? THIS is why Republicans and Democrats can't get us actual thinkers to go to your side you realize that right?
Pigotry, you said < he believed the poor should be condemned to their poor fate because they only have themselves to blame.>
Wrong on three levels. You were clearly spoonfed this Marxist pap in college, so you might consider a refund for overpaying to get whatever the diploma was worth.
1) good/evil is not a function of how much money one possess; it is a function of behavior, chosen of free will, based on values, what one holds more important than self-centered impulses and desires.
2) behavior and values are taught and learned, from birth. how much one has in money does NOT TEACH VALUES
3) Karl Marx and you Leftists have it wrong; VALUES determines one's lot in life - NOT money.
Stop coveting the rich (read it in the Bible, what the Left tore down from schools)
Stop stealing from others (read it in the Bible, what the Left tore down from schools)
If you stop teaching values, you will end up believing Marxist rubbish, an indication you went to college, likely graduate school.
Other than his very conservative philosophy (which rivals Scalia's and I assume Thomas') is when Bork unflinchingly fired Cox in the Saturday Night Massacre when Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus RIGHTFULLY didn't. I think that to me was what did him in more than anything. Had Bork resigned as well, he might very well had won. Let me make clear that I'm SO glad he did not. As a result, we have (ironically enough because of Sen. Ted Kennedy) Justice Kennedy, a right-leaning moderate that became THE swing vote on the Supreme Court. Don't feel so bad, conservatives. After all, you have the aforementioned three conservatives and Rober--uh, well, you have the aforementioned three TRUE conservatives who will keep Bork's glorious (to you) philosophy going. Better hope that they hang on until another Repub gets into the White House--which might be awhile...
No one has to "condemn" the poor to their fate, Piggy; they take care of that themselves with their lack of ambition and perseverence. Fate is bulls**t. All of us are created equal; from then on, it's up to the individual to make his own future.
As if we needed reminding, the good die young.
Thank god that's over with.
Spider, you, like so many other conservatives assume that everyone starts at the same place. In reality, a mere 5% actually change social status over a lifetime. Don't tell me no one's working hard enough.
When the rich get the laws to move money towards them so they don;t have to contribute at the same rates as everyone else, it has nothing to do with how hard you work. DO you think the kids of these rich people are working really hard? No, they inherit the money.
Still sucking that government teat spyder?
what I said amounted to "OK he's DEAD. WHO CARES?" (I certainly didn't consider it newsworthy)
When I hear or see Bork's name, I just can't help but remember an interview I saw withhim, in connection with the 25th anniversary of the Watergate break-in, in which he said they (Nixon loyalists at the justice department) would go into the men's room, stand at the urinal, and ask one another if each was "on board" with the cover up that all of them knew was going on.
.....and THIS is the guy who replaced Elliott Richardson as The Attorney General of The United States?
Not only that; but, he also ALMOST became a U.S. Supreme Court Justice?
Kinda' makes you wonder what skeletons the rest of them have to hide, eh?
Those of us with enough life experience to actually remember America, the once-proud country that we grew up in and that is no more, will remember Robert Bork as a brilliant man and thoughtful constitutional scholar. Robert Bork was a solid thinker and observer who was knowingly, shamelessly, willfully and viciously smeared by drunks, liars and fools like ChappaQ Teddy and his ilk just for blood sport, and an observer whose 2003 and 2005 book theses have (sadly) proven true, and only more true with every passing year. America is now Amerika, a Sodom and Gomorrah (sadly, many on this thread are so spiritually illiterate that they do not even know the source of that reference) cesspool without sound central leadership and with a broken moral compass. (When even dead children are immediately exploited for political gain as we've seen in recent days, that pretty much says it all. But then again, this crowd has no respect for human life, in the womb or out of it.) What Robert Bork said and observed was correct. In America, truth used to be a defense. May light perpetual rest on Bork. As for America, there's little left to say except RIP.
Values, yeah the Saturday Night Massacre showed me enough of his values that I didn't want him on the Supreme Court and feel our Senators did represent their constituents well, that time.
you mean like the right-wing, so-called "christians" are exploiting dead kids with a vengeance?
No one with a decent set of values would applaud the death of another human being, except for that of absolute monsters like Hitler and his ilk. That said, I think the country was well served by those senators who opposed the ascendance of Bork to the Supreme Court. Some would just lay that at the doorstep of Ted Kennedy, ignoring the fact that 6 Republicans joined in. That was, of course, a different time. Nixon's prospective impeachment depended on men who were Americans first and Republicans second. Honorable men like Richardson and Ruckelhaus resigned before prostituting themselves. This admirable behavior has long ago been purged from the GOP. The current crop of panderers would sell their soul to support anyone on their side, and the country is poorer for it.
Bluelake- you're absolutely right. The good do die young.
Bork was 85. What does that tell ya?
spider-737231 Absolutely rubbish, Often times the poor don't even have enough to eat daily and are more often than not subjugated to school systems lacking in the resources to overcome the madness that surrounds these children's daily lives , You, like I, are not equal to "oh" so many blue bloods and colonialist still omni present in these here United States. If you can't see that then let them eat cake right.....?
You truly don't believe that you and I have the same opportunities afforded to the likes of the Hilton's, Rothchild's, Kennedy's, Johnson's etc........ , The list is enormous and I have rarely seen, No make that Never seen a malnourished child pull himself up by the proverbial boot straps and take responsibility for himself or herself......But then again, Maybe you could enlighten us with one or two examples of someone rising to the pinnacle of success without assistance from the government, be it federal or State, We would love to hear such a story, were all ears.
Bork was a Co-Chairperson for Romney's judiciary committee.
He would have swung the Supreme to the ultra-hard right.
Bork's replacement, Anthony Kennedy, although not a progressive jurist, was a better choice for the Supreme Court and the American people.
No doubt Robert Bork was a brilliant man and thoughtful constitutional scholar. But his interpretations were wrong and I'm glad his nomination was rejected.
RIP Robert Bork
And this is different from liberals... how? Actually I'll tell you how. The conservatives are at least aware they are doing it and are unapologetic about it. Liberals, on the other hand, seem to think they are open minded. So not only are they extremist, self-righteous and imperious, they are smug, too.
I am not shedding any tears for this one. His legal interpretations would have set our country back 60 years. Even though I am sorry to his family for their loss, I am not sorry to see him go. To hide one's prejudices behind old and outdated laws goes against everything our country stands for.
Can't someone from Newsvine please bar this "Osborneomn160" person from the boards for spamming? I'm sick of seeing him/her peddling their stuff here. Thank you.
There were many concrete things that were problematic with Bork: his decision to uphold a corporation's right to forced sterilization of women as a condition of employment (no kidding), his belief in the rights of businesses to segregate, and his willingness to participate in Nixon's coverup of Watergate being three of the more well known.
But as a young and naive conservative, I followed his hearings closely, and subsequently bought several of his books. Those who have read his books should thank their lucky stars that he was not confirmed. To keep this post short, I'll just note the most relevant and shocking opinion of our almost-judge: he actually believed that the right of judicial review (the power of the court to review actions and legislation of the other branches to determine their constitutionality) to be itself unconstitutional, and in fact referred to it as 'anathema to democracy'. In short, his interpretation of the Founders' intentions with the Supreme Court was that it was to be powerless relative to the other two branches of government, perhaps a sort of advisory committee.
The nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court was the opening salvo in what has become a continuing effort by the right to destroy the US government from within, akin to Bush's appointment of Brown to head FEMA, and the Tea Party insistence on breaking the government rather than compromising with democrats for the good of the citizenry. For all the lip service they give to the founders and the American people, their goal is indeed to overthrow the government, and establish something else more to their liking. Their lips say 'freedom', but their actions speak 'treason'.
Am I sorry he's dead? I guess I don't care. I wonder: how do you think people felt when Benedict Arnold died?
RIP
Good riddance.
LOL
Not really that funny. Bjork was the beginning of the end for the nomination process where a President basically got what he wanted out of respect. Once Bjork was Bjorked by John Kerry and Ted Kennedy it was open game on all nominees for both sides. Partisan politics sunk to a new level. How progressive.
Before you actually had decent judges on the bench who understood that time change and morals adjust. Reagan however, decided to be an extremist.
No one can screw up a religion better than mankind., that is for certain. I know some awesome Catholics who are great people and great Christians. I also know the other kind. That is true of all man made denominations...we are so vile in our hearts...and we do not choose who goes to heaven or hell...
Morals should not "adjust" with time. There is right, and there is wrong...and they are constants. I do know that there are some "typical liberal knuckleheads" as well as some "typical conservative nutcases" that want to marry and divorce at will, kill the unborn without restriction, drop babies here and there without parenting them, stealing, lying, cheating, doing whatever feels good to them with great disregard for civilized behavior, or the common good. In looking at society today, see what this has wrought.
God Bless America - at one point slavery was moral. Is that ok with you.
God Bless America - at one point woman were property - Is that ok with you.
God Bless America- at one it was ok to kill someone for speaking out against a Christianity. - Is that ok with you.
Sounds like the Senate started doing its job and fulfilling its constitutional obligation, rather than acquiescing to whatever nutball the president nominates.
skrekk only if that were true, the last two appointments disprove your theory.
God bless America, There not morals, just simple rules that were formulated by enlightened upright mammals who evolved to the next level. Nothing more, it's as easy as mine and yours, thats the issue with every man who's walked the face of the earth. The key is keeping yours and adding to that "Yours pile" within the confines of acceptable practice.
Let me simplify. We find it just to sentence a young man two as many as 20 years for possession of a drug, yet we send those that rob us blind in the banking system and Wall st firms to 1 to 2 years for egregious immoral acts that destroy their fellow Americans without an ounce of pity for those who's very lives they have wrecked. Again, You call that a moral issue, I call it bad rules, and bad rules need to be changed.
It's actually quite simple when you remove religion from the equation.
Happy Holidays guy's see ya on the Vine next year!
If religion were part of our judicial system then parents would be free to murder their disobedient children, as mandated my Deuteronomy 21:18-21.
And Bork thought that to do that would be OK, that the state should be used to enforce Christian sharia law.
Thankfully the Senate wisely rejected that nutty theocrat by the largest margin in US history.
skrekk reread my post, I agree wholly with you? Thats why I believe in changing the rules. The constitution off our fore fathers is not above enlightenment gained by man on his quest for knowledge.
Gotcha, Jeff.
A caveman
RIP Judge.
Bork is not worthy of even an historical footnote.
no, he's worth an historical footnote (and that's ALL) - he was the unwitting catalyst for starting the VETTING of judges.
Neither is Edward Kennedy
On his way to Hades.
Hades said 'No'
what, then...PP? Permanent PURGATORY?
Permanent PURGATORY...then put a fork in it - I mean - Pork..Rob Pork
A truly great man - a legal mind that was unprecedented, with his strict interpretation of the Law instead of liberal activism that re-interprets the Law based on political correctness.
He had many critics, but his character always confounded them and their false accusations.
Judge Bork also converted to the Roman Catholic Faith, showing an even greater character.
God bless Judge Robert Bork, a truly great man who will be missed. The Law and our Nation less without him. He would have made an excellent Supreme Court Justice.
For every individual who converts to Catholicism. there are tens of millions leaving it in this country. Praise be to God.
Well said. One of the last great non activist judges.
Robert Bork fired Archibald Cox after his two bosses (AG and deputy AG) at the Justice Department resigned rather than follow the criminal Nixon's order. (Nixon decided to fire Cox, the special prosecutor, who was uncovering all sorts of incriminating stuff about the Nixon administration.)
OK? How's that for a bad decision? For that reason alone, Bork should have been rejected for a seat on the SCOTUS.
I don't care what Bork thinks about abortion or other stuff. If he supports a criminal, what good is he?
benedictineacc
He'll hold a spot open for you in hell.
Borkie was a sign of the teabaggers to come later. SAME MINDSET as evidenced n his later writings
according to bork, no right to privacy, meaning that the governemnt and companies can simply sell everything about you without any consent. "limited" freedom of speech, meaning that the government should be free to silence those that it disagrees with.
That's what Obummer is all about.
Proof please. And please no linking to WND or some other blog that has no credibility.
LOL, the latest stupidity from "whirled nut daily" is that the ilusory "war on christmas' is plot by the evil Jews
"Judge Bork also converted to the Roman Catholic Faith, showing an even greater character."
It looks like the Dems outfoxed themselves. If they had confirmed Bork, Obama would be appointing a new justice now.
I'll take Kennedy over this knuckle dragger anytime!
RIP Borke - a great scholar and professor, but not a good candidate for the Supreme Court. As one cheif justice put it many decades ago - "Is this country sure it wants to put the outcome of this issue in the hands of nine attorneys?"
Remember, the law is not a moral compass, and judges are there to interpert and apply the law as it stands.
If they had confirmed Bork we would have been set back 100 years. Good Bye, You will not be missed by reasonable citizens of the United States.
Good riddance to scum.
Classy
I hope he enjoys his time in etrenal hell along with Reagan and the other Republicans. Yes and some Democrats.
Very nice and very "liberal" of you.
Anger management not working, eh??
Very Angry Person - Soon to be appearing at a schoolyard near you.
One down ... Scalia next, then Thomas & Roberts. They all belong to the 15th century.
Yes. We must live in a "free society," free to kill our unborn, our elderly, our undesirables, marry and divorce multiple times, engage in whatever sexual activity we choose, basically live to out whatever our whims say feels good to us...those nasty conservatives, thinking they are all that decent! Hahahahaha!
First of all no one is pro abortion to kill babies. It comes down to the government not having the right to decide our moral values for us. Everyone has a different level of acceptance towards abortion often based on religious values. For example in the case of rape even among christians some see it as ok for victims some don't. So who gets to decide which persons religious beliefs are the right one and force it on everyone else. That is exactly what this country was founded to escape, and also exactly what the christians hate about the muslims sharia law in their countries.
As for the elderly no ones wants to kill them. And our undesirables, do you mean the poor and sick? Because last i check the republican stand on the poor and sick is " screw it its their own fault.. blah blah personal responsibility". Because after all apparently that is what Jesus would do!
And divorces i will agree they are happening very often but again no high ground on either side.
And the sex with who ever and as how often. Is not the governments business, and definitely not yours. Its never has been and never will be. I don't care what you are smoking to think it is. Only one ever gets to judge me on that, and i won't meet him till after this life.
I will never understand how it is not the governments place to tell a business owner they can't dump chemicals in the ground. Thats their private doing so its off limits and the governemnt getting into it should be stopped. But yet somehow my sex life is what the government should be concerned with?????
and may the Flying Spaghetti Monster touch you with one of its noodley appendages with rich sauce gawd bless america...
GBA, so you think the government should tell us what we can and can't do in the bedroom? you think the government should be able to tell people when they can marry and to whom?
precisely where in the Constitution does it say any of this? you can't claim to support the Constitution and then say the government has the right to do these things
Sure. You didn't know that people like him believe that the only the government should stay out of is their wallet. That's the only thing people like him really care about. Their "God" is green and has pictures of dead presidents on it.
strange that the worshippers of mammon should call themselves "christian"
Yeah my understanding of the Bible is that it is pretty much impossible to be wealthy and be a true christian. A true christian would consider the support of the poor a better use of their excess wealth than using it on themselves for luxuries. Eye of a needle. When Jesus asks you what you did with that extra 2.3 million you were blessed with, what will you say? 'I bought a really cool MBZ and an extra house'? A REAL christian would say 'I fed thousands of hungry people in my community'.
Strange how in modern America the wealthy 'christians' feel they are justified in their selfishness. And then the poor are considered to be immoral, purely because they are poor and so God has rightly not blessed them with wealth. And then they go on about how anybody who works hard enough can become well off too, denying the reality of luck and chance and its dominant role in all our lives.
These 'christians' are worshippers of Mammon, and it is reflected in their philosophy. 'Good' people always make enough money because 'God rewards hard work'. 'Luck does no exist - it is all effort and merit that determines outcomes in EVERY life'. What a crock. What a self-serving load of crap. They believe that they caused everything that happens in their own lives. Are they gods? They think so.
One of the first great conservative men to be vilified by the lamestream media such as nbc...and the beginning of the kool aid drinkers party. I remember this shameful event. Poor very angry person, you don't decide who goes to hell, but I can promise you remaining very angry at anything will provide you will a hell on this earth.
back at yah Boo...
GBA- You live in a very twisted and sorry world. You have no respect for anyone that is different. The thing I've learned lately is that why the WWII generation was a great generation the world is becoming much better with their passing. God Bless All of America!!
God Bless,
I'm guessing here, but you probably would have voted for Newt Gingrich over Obama, no questions asked. Now, the President has been married for some time, to just one woman and is by all accounts an excellent and faithful husband and father. Mr. Gingrich, on the other hand has been married (thus far) three times and his previous exercises were ended through infidelity. My question then is, which one seems to have moral superiority here? Or, do you assume that an SOB is o.k. when he's your SOB?
"One of the first great conservative men to be vilified by the lamestream media such as nbc."
The non stop whining about the media continues.
Explain something to us conservative --- why is it perfectly acceptable for a conservative Republican president to nominate a judge based that judge's political views but it is NOT acceptable for Democrats to oppose that same judge based on that judges political views? On the other hand -- if a liberal president nominates a liberal judge based on that judge's political views , it's perfectly acceptable for conservatives to oppose that judge?
Seems to me this is just another example of conservative hypocrisy.
You know I'm never surprised by the hate of the Liberal party......I've never seen a more angry group of people in my life......I thank God every day that I don't have your life......
Hate? I don't see the Liberals going around like the hate filled GOP/Fox News/Wall Street Journal commentators do.....
wb52
We have plenty of reasons to be angry but one of them just left the planet.
You know what I "hate"? I "hate" that the entire Republican Party has had almost nothing to say since last Friday. That's what I "hate". I'm sure I'll also "hate" when the GOP blocks every measure that NEEDS to come out of last Friday.
give them a CHANCE - AFTER the shock of another massacre wears off, they will BE BACK... Even Bonehead seems to be keeping a lower profile
".I've never seen a more angry group of people in my life"
Then you were NOT PRESENT in Berkeley the day after RONALD REAGAN called for a
BLOODBATH of STUDENTS DEATHS at the hands of California Highway Patrol & Alameda County Sheriffs & said "Let's get it over with now !!"
AND THEN the next day when PARENTS figured out that RONNIE was calling for the MURDER of THEIR CHILDREN .
REAGAN called for a MASS EXECUTION of Berkeley Students & BORK would have supported it.....
Sandy Hook & Kent State would be minor history had REAGAN carried out the SLAUGHTER he called for !
You live a self sheltered life of denial there WB52..or you are a LIAR
Mister Fids... time to put down the crackpipe.
"You know I'm never surprised by the hate of the Liberal party......I've never seen a more angry group of people in my life.."
In supporting the rights of businesses to discriminate racially, Bork was willing to put the evil of racism over the good of racial equality. Good riddance to him. And to anyone who thinks this is an example of "the hate of the Liberal party", good riddance to you too. Thank God you have no place in today's America.
Oh sure they still have a place in our society. Just its as one of the dirtiest words in their vocabulary as a MINORITY.
I don't think Bork supported discrimination, he just argued that the Civil Rights Act overstepped constitutional boundaries. Ron Paul happens to share that opinion, and is likewise accused of racism.
Properly done, the provisions of the act should have been implemented via constitutional amendment. Ditto for the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
Under that philosphy, American soldiers who happened to be black were not allowed to use the "whites pnly bathrooms" in railway stations in the South during WW2, but the German POW's they were guarding were. If changing this requires forcing some things down the throats of the racists, I welcome it.
Oh, and Clarence is a better choice?.... yea.... Bork did not reflect mainstream values... just the GOP junk.....
No man is an island, entire of itself ... Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
He was a perfect conservative muslim
Implacable Patriot
WE can only hope.
On the positive side, if he had made it to the Supreme Court, the President would now be able to put another less conservative person on the court. Then again, if Bork had made it, Obama wouldn't have been allowed to run for office.
Bork would have made a great Mullah.
God bless Robert Bork He would have made an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. Many of our current justices do not hold true American values. This is why we have so much violence in our society.
Bork would have made a great supreme court justice in a theocracy like Iran.
Show me where "TRUE AMERICAN VALUES" is ever mentioned in the US Constitution....
just once..
The greatest of all 'True American Values' is tolerance. We are supposed to live together as very different people, believing in different gods or none at all, following different views of morality, raising our kids differently, and yet still working together politically and holding each other in proper esteem as an American Citizen. That being said, the modern Right is unamerican because they believe that everybody should live as they do, worship the same god, follow the same morals (which they always try to make LAWS), and generally they economically and politically discriminate against anybody who is not of their group.
So remind me again what 'True American Values' Bork represented? I don't see what you mean at all. He was a materialist who believed that the economic freedoms of businesses trumped the civil freedoms of citizens, and he was decidedly intolerant of those citizens who disagreed. He believed that white, southern business owners should not be forced to serve blacks. Their economic rights to pick and choose their customers trumps the civil rights of black citizens to inhabit a society that cannot discriminate against them. So you see, he thought that businesses ARE America, not people. He fought for that poor downtrodden capitalist in their efforts to make arbitrary rules of operation within their fiefdom. Again, where are the 'True American Values' in all this? I see modern neo-feudalism in his philosophy.
Bork didn't think the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment should apply to women, or really to any class of persons. Nor did he believe in a right to privacy - especially in the bedroom.
He was a terrible nominee and America escaped a bullet when he wasn't confirmed. He would have set the country back to what it was before 1868, to the detriment of blacks, women, gays, and anyone concerned with personal liberty.
The other bullet we escaped was Romney, who had used Bork as his adviser on the constitution.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-raskin/mitt-romneys-constitution_b_1459235.html
Good riddance to him. To say a law requiring businesses to serve black people would too greatly infringe on the freedom of the individuals who owned the businesses is so beyond immoral.
Good to see this type of backwards thinking is dying off literally.
But by law a business can refuse anyone, for any reason. It is the Federal and State run businesses that can not refuse anyone. So you are saying it is not ok for busiess owers to have rights, but everyone else can have those same rights. Laws are not meant to be fair they are meant to prevent fights. By your logic it is ok for anyone to take your keys to drive your car. After all you don't have the right to prevent anyone from having access to it. Again Bork answered the question correctly, it just wasn't the answer that liberials wanted to hear. Just like it was ok for Teddy to kill Mary Jo, and not be put in prison for it. By the way the law hasn't changeed since then.
I love living in a land where, through representation in our government, we are able to make laws that allow us to regulate business. We may not do a very good job at it, but even the Constitution can be amended and we have even repealed an amendment. If you want to overturn the Civil Rights Act go ahead and try. I think you will find very little support for its repeal. I believe, we as a society have a right to say, If you want to have a business here there are rules and one of these rules is that you must not treat its members differently because of ...whatever the society determines.
We the people! Right On!
@300Michael
Well you have an interesting point but it is wrong. Yes, business owners do NOT have the right to decide who they will serve and who they will not. A business is a public enterprise that affects the whole community, and this is why the ultimate control over who can or cannot run a business is vested in the public thru their local govt officials who grant or deny business licenses. A business owner does not and should not have the same liberties that they have as just an individual. Their business exists by the assent of the people, and so the people can regulate to some degree how they can operate their business. This is the same basis for how we can require a minimum wage and worker safety standards. These issues directly relate to public welfare, and so no individual business owner may exempt themselves from controls that we the people have deemed necessary for ALL businesses to observe.
The simple fact is that the right to make money is trumped by the right of people to not face discrimination. You lose rights the second you flip that sign from 'Closed to Open'. And that is the way it should be, else businesses usurp both economic and political power from the people. There is no such thing as a 'private business'. Just by doing business you become a public entity, subject to public controls. If you don't like that, work for somebody else.
False. You might want to read the Civil Rights Act and learn who that applies to. A private business in general is free to discriminate on any basis except for the classes covered under the CRA (ie, race, gender, religion, nationality, etc).
Neoconfederates like Ron Paul and Robert Bork really hate the CRA, because they think private businesses should be free to discriminate against women and blacks.