When Reagan nominated Robert Bork for the Supreme Court, he made things pretty easy for his Democratic critics. Before becoming a nominee, Bork had said or written all kinds of bizarre and scary things. Once his hearings began, Bork could have distanced himself from his record, but instead he tried to justify his body of unhinged right-wing work, as anyone with confidence in his or her beliefs might.
So, when Ted Kennedy noted, for example, that Bork supported a law that imposed a poll tax on voters, Bork acknowledged his position and said, “It was only $1.50.”
I mention this because John McCain spoke this morning on his commitment to nominating conservative judges to the federal bench if elected president. Bork’s name didn’t come up in his speech, of course, but so long as McCain’s intentions with regards to the judiciary are on the front-burner today, let’s take a closer look at the 1987 speech McCain delivered on the Senate floor on Bork’s behalf.
“I would like to explain why I am going to vote of favor of confirmation [of Robert Bork], and why I do so without any hesitation … I believe that what the Senate should appropriately examine in a nominee are: Integrity and character, legal competence, and philosophy and judicial temperament. I believe Robert Bork is well qualified in all four respects … Judge Bork’s honesty, integrity, and diligence are above reproach … [he] demonstrates that he is not some intellectual ‘loose cannon on deck,’ or a quixotic maverick jurist , but is a thoughtful, reasonable, jurist … [he] is hardly a radical, but is rather a very thoughtful judge in synch with the vast majority of his colleagues on the bench. […]
“First, and most importantly, is the question of Judge Bork’s view of the role of the judiciary. Judge Bork is clearly a believer in judicial restraint. He believes that the courts should not create social policy or arbitrate social policy disputes unless the Constitution clearly speaks to the issues. He believes that in our republican form of government such decisions are properly left to legislatures elected by the people, not Federal judges appointed for life. I have no problem with that view, because I wholeheartedly agree with it.”
I realize 1987 was a while ago (I was 14 during the Bork hearings), and many may have forgotten the judicial record McCain was defending so enthusiastically.
Back in 2005, Jonathan Chait had an item on Bork that is no longer online.
The funny thing is that the memory of the campaign to demonize Bork as a right-wing nut has grown stronger even as the intervening years have shown quite clearly that Bork is, in fact, a right-wing nut.
The most famous hyperbolic charge against Bork — one which has been invoked far more often against Bork’s accusers than it ever was against Bork — was Sen. Ted Kennedy’s claim that “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters,” etc., etc.
This was far from the sort of fair summation of the totality of Bork’s legal philosophy that you might find at a law school seminar. But it wasn’t exactly false either. Bork had criticized the portion of the Civil Rights Act banning discrimination in public accommodations, argued against extending the equal protection of the 14th Amendment to women, took an extremely restrictive view of free speech, and so on.
And while Bork’s record was drawing public scrutiny, McCain went out of his way to insist that Bork “is hardly a radical,” and not at all a “loose cannon,” but actually just a “thoughtful, reasonable, jurist.” McCain said he “wholeheartedly” agreed with Bork’s role of the judiciary.
And now McCain wants to appoint Supreme Court justices of his own. Something to think about.
No Trackbacks To “When McCain loved Robert Bork“
Favorite Bork moment - when the champion of tort reform sued for $1 million dollars after slipping on the stairs of the New York Yale Alumni club after a speech he gave.
They should get married. They’re made for each other.
Hell, yeah 1987 is a while ago! I wasn’t even born. The dangerous things Bush will leave won’t be merely the Iraq atrocity, but also the Supreme Court. Post-Marshall USA law is determined by the Court. That’s why a Democrat is crucial in this election. To have a Supreme Court with 9 Bushite Cons is rather…um…let me put it this way: scary beyond all reason.
Gabriel @ 1:
C’mon now, everyone Borks now and then.
Ha Ha! I like the juxtaposition of the two photographs. It looks like Bork is pointing at that huge lump McStain has on the side of his head. Does anyone know what the growth is?
She looked much cuter in that swan dress.
New York prosecutors arrest 8 in gang accused of water boarding their victims; claim in court documents that this it torture.
Why has the MSM not picked up on this? Our own government is prosecuting citizens for waterboarding people (by claiming it is torture).
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/.....topstories
In the classic 70’s Howard The Duck Marvel comic, writer Steve Gerber often used “Bork” as a belch or belch-related sound effect, which I found amusing.
Pol Pot-O-Cheesesauce @ 5:
Bush’s penis.
Why do you think McSenile would remember what he did 14 years ago? He can’t even remember what he said 3 days ago.
bitter kep306 @ 9:
Throw in some jellybeans and you got Ronnie Raygun part 2. Oh yippee.
Coup of 2000
Time is getting HEAVY
bork had strange views on gun control too.
bork! bork! bork!
ConcernedCanuck @ 8:
Lol! :)
ConcernedCanuck @ 10:
Doubtful McCain is going to be offering free downloads and ring tones in the oval office.
Jelly Beans sounds like his style.
Say what you want about the man, but he a great look goin’! He looked like a 40’s era film villain! Outstanding!
General_Rennenkampf @ 3:
You weren’t born? Huh’? You’re not even 21 years old? Geeze louise!
Many people remember Bork as the shooter in the “Saturday Night Massacre” during the Nixon impeachment hearings.
In 1987 thousands of people across the US stood on street corners with signs protesting the nomination of an anticonstitution criminal to the Supreme Court. Everyone knew since October 20th 1973 that he was a right wing nut, except McCain, of course. He had only been released from captivity for seven months. Still I can’t help but wonder if he has ever read a history book, because his ignorance is astonishing.
Anyone with that much ugly going on should not be allowed outdoors without a cloth sack…….
……….and as for McCain……….
Bork was a big Poopie-Pants!!
The people on the Supreme Court aren’t very bright nor are they very qualified. They are all a bunch of political appointees that sucked the right c@ck to get where they got.
Bork would of fit right in.
L.A. Confidential @ 11:
Since you live where you do, I thought you’d appreciate this bit of foreign humor.
Room Service in Mexico or Thailand.
I would comment . . . but I’m a farmer and since I’m currently leasing Robert Bork’s head to raise crops of pubic hair for geriatric vulval reconstructions (yes, that is what your grandmother’s bush looks like), I’ll just have to keep my thoughts to myself.
Dear commenter #5 …………. skin cancer is very VERY common for folks who have lived in Arizona long enough … please restrain as it would be rude to point
♠Bangkok-Bob♠ @ 21:
Funny. At least they try to speak English over there.
Bork is insane. He believes that the Ninth Amendment and part of the Fourteenth Amendment are tantamount to unintelligible “ink blots.” He believes that the only rights courts should enforce are the ones enumerated in the Constitution, and that beyond that, states have carte blanche powers to do whatever they want to their own people, as long as a majority of the legislature approves it. To my knowledge, no other judge up for a Supreme Court seat has so openly espoused such a terrifying understanding of the Constitution.
Karen @ 25:
By the way, that construction is what McCain praised as “judicial restraint.”
Isome Hussein @ 16:
What a pup!
And in 1987 McCain was still a grumpy old man.
It makes me wonder if anybody had been so irked in the day as to introduce a special bill to deprive Bork of his right to vote (clearly unconstitutional, and supremely unlikely to pass) what his argument against it might have been. It would be enlightening in view of the present anti-voter state legislation and its validation just the other day by the Supremes. Gotta stick those nuns in their faces. Heh!
wjbill @ 23:
Say, wasn’t there a bit of a flap just a few months back about McCain and his refusal to release his most current medical records? Makes you wonder….
He looks like the Quaker Oats guy on the box. hes got that patchy handle bar beard. weird.
guys (and gals),
i’m anxious to get to work on mccane, too, but first hillary’s gotta bow. gracefully, god willing.
i don’t understand why bill’s being such a stodgy old bastard. he acts as if the black community owes him something, when really it’s the other way around.
When you remember that, as the Declaration states, the founders considered our rights unalienable, and granted by our Creator (whether God or Nature), and that this was self-evident to them; and that they considered the role of government to defend those unalienable rights; and that the people had a right to abolish any government that failed to protect them…well, then we KNOW what the founders original intent was, and how evil Bork and McCain are, and how obnoxious their positions are to the idea that is (or was) America.
Karen @ 25:
Scalia has a similar position; he says the 9th amendment is unenforceable. Imagine that! A Supreme Court Justice who denigrates the Bill of Rights! How disgusting is that?
Is it just me, or does Grampa look like his face is about to slide off his skull entirely?
Publicus @ 33:
Well, just think if this nut had made it, what the country would look like now with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Bork.
Smirky McWarboner @ 22:
P2B? Have you been reincarnated? LOL
john mccane’s the neocon’s paper mache mister magoo pinata gift back to america. the gift that keeps on giving. filled with candy, toys, pennies and pesos.
no blindfold required to play.
Publicus @ 33:
Scalia’s position is similar, but not quite as blatant. Scalia believes that the Ninth Amendment is judicially unenforceable, but not entirely meaningless. Scalia is also willing to look to American legal tradition and culture to give effect to fundamental rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. (Though, I concede he doesn’t recognize very many.) And Scalia maintains some respect for precedents in which rights have been recognized.
Bork won’t even go that far. He literally believes that unenumerated rights are altogether unenforceable, and that the Ninth Amendment is utterly meaningless.
And yes, it is disgusting. In my opinion, all of the judges on the Court disregard the Bill of Rights, especially the Ninth Amendment.
ConcernedCanuck @ 8:
Bush’s penis isn’t that big.
Smirky McWarboner @ 22:
Funny shit!
John Dean has a quite good background on the Bork hearings in his book, “Broken Government.” The radical right, of which Bork is a card-carrying member, call judges who actually uphold the constitution, the Bill of rights, and 200 years of precedent “activists.” Their own sympathizers want to go back to the 15th century without being questioned. I guess if you go backwards, that’s not activism. Ah the good old days, right, McSame?
enough @ 41:
Heh, it’s reactivism. They’re a collection of reactionary radicals in robes, who are happy to ignore the Constitution’s words in order to roll back the clock of progress.
If this isn’t a good enough reason to vote for whoever the Dem. nominee is, be it Obama, Clinton, or Daffy fuckin’ Duck, rather than just staying home and throwing your toys out of the pram, nothing is.
I have a slightly different memory of the nomination battle that should be a lesson for today: After Bork was gone, I wrote to a friend saying something like “Beforehand, the right wing was rubbing its hands with glee at the prospect of the Bork battle. Now they’re spending their time whining about how mean those nasty ol’ liberals were.”
It was precisely because of Bork that we began to see what were in effect stealth candidates for the Court: carefully vetted to be safely right wing before being nominated but with a limited record to attack.
General_Rennenkampf @ 3:
Dude! You’re under 21 and you’re on this site?! And here I thought i was the youngest!
Yeah, that would be one of the final nails in the coffin…2 more conservative judges. Say goodbye to
1) fair elections
2) civil rights
3) Roe v. Wade
4) Habeas Corpus
5) filing lawsuits against corporations when their products poison you
We might as well be Myammar at that point.