Steve, I am not in disagreement with that point.
However, Bork had his time at bat -- and he is NOT the issue here.
My only point is that his sustained carping adds nothing to the debate, IMO. It only reflects an unmanaged ego that reflects badly on him.
"My only point is that his sustained carping adds nothing to the debate, IMO. It only reflects an unmanaged ego that reflects badly on him."
He makes a very good point that Miers will be unable to say one way or another her thoughts on the Originalist judicial philosophy, due to the politics going on. Therefore, giving her a fair hearing won't reveal anything.
I trust a person who's actually been in that situation to know what use the senate's judicial committee will be in revealing anything not previously known.
Other than advancing this point, he makes the valuable contribution of stepping outside of the supposed judicial independance and demonstrating solidarity with conservatives. Some of you will point out that he's not a perfect one. But he firmly goes on record to being to the Right of President Bush, the guy who gets to nominate someone for the open slot on the SCOTUS. If Bork is weak on the 2nd Amendment, that makes Bush, in my eyes, look vastly worse, and does not make me trust him any longer. Bush has gone Left.
Bork happens to own the mind that was once considered one of the most brilliant legal minds of the day. The WSJ thought enough of his opinion to publish it. Not a subscriber, I have not had the opportunity to read it, but I would be willing to bet the President read it. And I would be willing to bet the President had some respect for it, even if he profoundly disagreed with it. A lot of the carping Freepers on this thread have stated their opinions and snide remarks, but they seem to begrudge the Judge for stating his.