Glad someone caught it. ; )
I think it predated Clinton. There was a time in the 1980s with the fights over Bork, Tower and Wright where both parties decided to go after each others’ top people. I think that really changed the tone.
To get Borked became a term in political lingo when someone who was a pretty good nominee just got chewed up by the opposition in an effort to keep them out.
Let’s not forget the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, either. No credible evidence yet it got as far as it did…hmmmm…
“management” sets the tone, and our congressional leaders seem to truly hate the other side of the aisle. Reid and Pelosi are the most high profile right now in that regard.
We will disagree about the merits of the charges against Bork and Thomas but I think we agree that there was definitely a change in the atmosphere in those days. Things became much more shamelessly bare knuckled and less respectful.
What charges were leveled at Bork that were susceptible to merits?
Kennedy, Biden et al. simply did not like his judicial philosophy. They attacked him mercilessly and, in my opinion, falsely. I remember it well. What they did to Bork was shameful.
His judicial philosophy is part of the merits.
You should have been at my dinner table tonight. In-laws are in town, if only there was something that could keep the topic off of Obama.
Pretend ajfranke, stevensondrive, Record10Carbon, David in FL et al were combined into a single person. That is my father-in-law.
I recall something about some guy named Nixon once. I dunno, he might fit into an entire generation’s view of the President.
I see. You think “advice and consent” means the Senate can substitute its judgment for the President’s? Really? Bork was eminently qualified and should have been confirmed unanimously.
Man, what a dreamy dinner party.
If it was beers, talking sports and tri, YES.
Politics? No thanks. Three people all near yelling about Obama while I try and look like I’m paying attention and secretly play with the dog.
I’m serious man, you’d blush as some stuff he says.
I doubt I would blush. I live in redneck farm country.
I don’t see any limitation on the grounds upon which, as a Constitutional matter, the Senate may withhold its “consent.”
As a matter of good policy and good politics (recognizing that what goes around comes around), I don’t think the Senate should withhold its consent on any old ground. But, a judge’s philosophy is fair game. Both parties routinely question nominees regarding their views on the law. I would not think that point is even particularly controversial. I would think the real question is what standard the Senate should impose – how far to the extreme must a nominee be before it’s fair to withhold consent? Bork was plenty close to one extreme.
Your comment that he was “eminently qualified” begs the question. Sure, he held some very impressive govt posts. But there is more to qualifications than that. In the case of a judge, those qualifications include the reasoning you use and the results you reach in your opinions. The Justices actually approved during Reagan’s presidency (Scalia, Kennedy and O’Connor) were, as a group, quite conservative. The Democrats were not insisting that a Justice be a centrist. They were just taking a stand against a perceived extremist.
Finally, keep the context in mind. There were plenty of excellent conservative judges who are not such lightning rods. They, for example, did not have Bork’s history with Nixon. In picking Bork, Reagan was not just making a statement about conservative judges. He was deliberately picking a fight by choosing one of, if not the, most controversial conservatives out there. He got the fight he wanted. Although it didn’t happen a lot during his 8 years, on this occasion he lost.
The power to appoint is primary and lies with the executive branch.
The advice and consent role is secondary.
When they attacked Bork they did not provide advice and consent. They verbally hacked the man to death with nothing but speculation and innuendo about what judicial philosophy he would bring to the bench. It was foul and disgusting.
While the Constitution does not define advice and consent, smarter men than you and I fully understood what it meant for nearly 200 years before the Senate chose to change course during Bork’s nomination.
I agree with your first two points and made those same basic points already.
But, you’re wrong about the Bork nomination. It was not speculation. He had a very long track record from his academic writing, his term in the Dept of Justice under Nixon and his work on the DC Circuit. He was extremely open and vocal about his views. No speculation was required to know that he was an ideological activist on the far right – a position he maintained throughout his professional life.
While it’s true that Bork’s hearings involved a new level of scrutiny, it’s also true – as I explained in some detail – that Reagan invited this fight.
He had a long and distinguished career in public service. Did you read what Kennedy and Biden said about him? Is there any evidence that what they said he would do was true? Of course not.
Ruth Ginsberg was as far left as Bork was right. She’s a justice, he is not.
I don’t remember what they specifically said about him. It’s been more than 20 years. But, I have read a lot of his decisions, heard him speak, read his antitrust book and have a decent understanding of his worldview.
Scalia is as far right as Bork. The difference is that, by and large, the Justices on the Supreme Court went about their prior work as appellate judges relatively quietly. Anyone who read the opinions of Ginsburg (both of them), Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Roberts, etc., could figure out where they were coming from. But, they were not on a public crusade at the time. That’s what made Bork unique among that crowd. He sometimes acted like a politician who happened to be a judge.
A direct quote from Kennedy and just the tip of the iceberg in the attack on Bork:
"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 for whom the judiciary is – and is often the only – protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy…
It was foul.
That Kennedy quote is no worse than what Bork writes about liberals. Mind you, we’re not talking about something Bork might have said casually, but what he wrote in his book where he had plenty of time to reflect and choose his words. “Slouching toward Gomorrah” is foul, too.
As far as the quote from Kennedy, the part about Roe is fair commentary. Of course, reversing Roe would not, by itself, make abortion illegal but it’s fair to assume that reversing Roe would have led to abortion being illegal in some states with the result that some women would choose back alley abortions. Yes, Kennedy is oversimplifying the issue, but he is making the generally accurate point that if you think women ought to have the choice to have an abortion, then Bork stands against you.
As for Brown, Bork does oppose that decision, a fairly extreme view. Reversing Brown would not result in segregation since I doubt any states or cities would allow segregation, even if the constitution did not forbid it. So, yes, having Bork on the court would not by itself cause segregation, but he would remove one of the legal protections against segregation. Given the way that politicians typically talk about issues, it’s not unreasonable to equate Bork with segregation.
I won’t parse all the other comments.
Reagan and Bork invited this fight. I don’t see you really denying that. If your argument is that the fight was not always as intellectually honest and respectful as it should have been, I won’t deny that. But, keep in mind the context. Politicians often oversimplify and exaggerate their opponents’ perceived errors. Bork held liberals in utter contempt and did not hesitate to say so. He was not just a conservative judge – they get on the courts all the time. He was an outspoken ideologue with a clear and extreme agenda. That’s who he was. You can’t nominate him for the Court and pretend that none of that matters and ask people to treat him like any other smart conservative.