It's very reassuring to see the esteemed Judge Bork is on board with the thoughtomator school of constitutional jurisprudence =)
I'm very impressed with Borks observations. Well-thought out, well-spoken. The Bush-bots won't get it. Sick of both the left and the right.
CARLSON: None at all, it seems like. But her defenders -- flaks from the White House, some of whom we've had on the show --
Take that Hugh Hewitt!!!
So Judge Bork, was your nomination a flaming success?
Like Bork knows how to keep his mouth shut and get through confirmation hearings.
A superb summation from one of the most "elite" of our nation's judges and legal scholars. I don't want to read the comments on this thread---not, at least, the scurrilous comments about Judge Bork and the late, great, beloved President Reagan that I know without even scanning it that the 'zoids have already plastered all over the thread.
I trust the President on this one. It going to be fine.
Meirs may demurr before this is over and Bush can get back to the business at hand, namely dictating policy instead of reacting to the cries of the crowd; but, I suppose, that is wishful thinking.
I'm tired of it and hope that the elections in 2006 will prove again that the RATs are unelectable regardless of their attacks.
Amazing. All these people I used to respect like Bork, Krauthammer, etc., all going off the deep end. A "disaster"? That's just loony. What it smells like to me is that these people can't imagine anyone, especially a Texas woman, being nearly as smart as they are. You know? It *is* elitism!
Another "liberal elitist neocon" joins our ranks in opposing Miers. :-)
Back when Bork was being considered, I thought maybe the Libs would have supported him if he was nominated by a RAT Prez. They were going on all-out-attack mode on every 3rd or 4th Reagan pick for almost anything. Remember the Chief arms negoitator they went ape over? Bork lost on the luck of the draw. The RATS were too blinded by their agenda.
all we need to know.
In addition to Constitutional law, one of Bork's specializations was antitrust. His book The Antitrust Paradox is the standard reference for the Chicago School of Law and Economics as apllied to that area. I've taught from that book. Take 100 people like me and ask how many of us would have predicted that a few years later Bork would be on the side of the Government against Microsoft, the most important antitrust case in two generations. I'm sure not a lot. I'm not saying he is being insincere, I'm just questioning all of these implicit assumptions that putting a Federalist Society heavyweight on the court means that we "know" how they are going to judge.
Take Michael McConnell, one of the NRO's rock-star heavyweights for this slot. I dare anybody to read through the paper trail on him provided on by several sites and tell me how you think he would rule on any of the important issues of the next few years. Compare his early public writings to his statements at his confirmation hearings. The following is from a Byron York article on NRO (September 18, 2002) about McConnell's hearings.
"The argument [McConnell's argument] left McConnell is the odd position of saying, in effect, You know all those things I wrote? Well, never mind."
bork is right!
Only two things really matter in a Justice of the Supreme Court. One is the quality of the mind, the other is the jurisprudence (the basic approach to the law). If those two qualities are present, everything else can be learned on the job.
Example: Justice William O. Douglas, who served longer on the Court than any other, but who went potty at the end and had to be persuaded to retire. Douglas was a specialist in securities law when he was appointed. He knew almost nothing about any other area of the law, when he went on the Court.
Keep in mind that Justices have more help in deciding legal issues than anyone else in the known universe. They have about four very smart clerks, each. And they have about 100 fairly bright lawyers filing briefs on every single detail of each case. Plus they get to hear argument from several more lawyers who are fairly bright cookies.
The Justices have to be smart enough to get on top of that mass of material, to figure out what's the straight skinny, and what's just woofing. Every Justice in every case is, in effect, the senior partner of a large law firm, some on staff but others volunteers, some trying to assist the Justice, some trying to fake out the Justice.
Earning a position at the top of two different large law firms is preparation for exactly that.
I note for the record that Judge Bork was formerly a law professor at Yale. I think there may be just a touch of academic snobbery in his remarks about Miers.
Congressman Billybob
Philistinism is...
Judge Bork would know a disastrous nomination. His was quite a success! Who did we get as a result of Bork's disastrous on every level nomination???????????????