Romney Gets Borked

ROBERT BORKAs Republicans stymie President Obama’s judicial nominees at an unprecedented rate, they are fond of arguing that the Democrats did it too.  They cite the admittedly contentious confirmation hearings of Robert Bork, whose nomination to the Supreme Court was defeated in 1987.  Bork, however, in contrast to the relatively moderate, uncontroversial nominees put forward by Obama, was a radical jurist with views that reached far outside the mainstream.  And he hasn’t mellowed with age.

Currently co-chair of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Justice Advisory Committee, Bork was interviewed by Newsweek, and provided these disturbing gems:

  • He acknowledged that opposing 1960′s landmark civil rights legislation on the ground that government coercion of “righteous” behavior is “a principle of unsurpassed ugliness.”
  • He still disagrees with the Supreme Court’s 1965 decision inGriswold v. Connecticut which struck down as a violation of the right to privacy a law that prohibited married couples from using contraceptives.
  • He maintains the First Amendment should be limited to political speech and not protect, “any other form of expression, be it scientific, literary or…pornographic”
  • He does not believe the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause should apply to women.  According to Bork,”it seems to me silly to say, ‘Gee, they’re discriminated against and we need to do something about it.’ They aren’t discriminated against anymore.”

After Bork’s Supreme Court nomination was scuttled, the vacancy went to Anthony Kennedy, who is the so-called swing vote on the present court.  Imagine if Bork hadn’t been Borked.  There he would sit with the other radicals on the Court — Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito — to form an extremely frightening and very solid majority that would quickly eviscerate rights for women, minorities, labor and criminal defendants, erect insurmountable barriers for challenging the actions of corporations in federal court, and gut federal regulations.

andy loveRobert Bork represents more than misleading shorthand for the politicization of the judicial nomination process.  He is alive and well and dispensing legal advice to the probable Republican candidate for president.  Presumably, Romney intends to nominate to the federal bench those with legal views consistent with his advisor.  If for no other reason, this is why we must support President Obama’s re-election.

Andy Love
Fair and Unbalanced 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Comments

  1. hwood007 says

    Perhaps you can raise FDR again and then watch what happens. Read the writings of FDR’s staff and you find what we are in for if the current PotUS repeats. Like then, we are now bing spent into our graves and if it does not stop, we too can become like Greece.

  2. in_awe says

    “in contrast to the relatively moderate, uncontroversial nominees put forward by Obama, was a radical jurist with views that reached far outside the mainstream.”

    That was the funniest thing I have read today.

    I just love a “moderate” feminist Latina who claims she can reach better decisions because of her gender and ethnicity than a “white guy”. I also just get all gooey when a former SG of the US makes it clear that she will not recuse herself from ruling on a momentous case she previously worked on to support for the Obama administration. I’m sure progressives wouldn’t mind if conservative justices behaved the same way.

  3. Don Duitz says

    UR so right, that is, correct!, not to disparage the left. We can work on the compromiser but, likes of Bork and Thomas, too, are hopeless, frightening and inhumane.

  4. Bill says

    “If for no other reason, this is why we must support President Obama’s re-election.”

    No, we must support a real Progressive presidential candidate. Obama has proved time and time again he is not that progressive.

      • Ray Bishop says

        Do I understand Bill and Joe that they actually think that they can support another Progressive Candidate? Do they know of one who could be elected?
        This idea is like giving up a Progressive vote to elect a Republican.

        Let’s think about reality and hope that this kind of thinking doesn’t back fire on us and we end up with a Republican in office.

        I also think about the Dirty Tricks of the Republican’s and wonder if some of these writers might be Republican’s hoping to create dissent against President Obama.

        Let’s not be fooled by these kinds of ridiculous ideas. We should Unite to Re-Elect President Obama. Once this is done we can think about the next election – but not now. The Country can not stand another Republican Administration in Power.
        They did enough damage under Bush/Cheney. And now with control of the House with a close margin in the Senate they have blocked almost everything we have tried to do under President Obama.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *