Skip to comments.Biden VP Debate Gaffe - His Opposition to Robert Bork (1987) made Roe v Wade(1973) possible?
Posted on 10/02/2008 8:14:23 PM PDT by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Senator Biden said the following during the 10/2/08 VP Debate:
And it didn't take me long -- it was hard to change, but it didn't take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference. That's why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don't like and the American people wouldn't like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties.
(Excerpt) Read more at elections.nytimes.com ...
It Isnt So Joe!
I guess it is possible he was referring to a later ruling where Roe was upheld only by a 5-4 vote...although his wording is rather awkward.
I think he meant that he thought Bork would have helped overturn Roe v. Wade... that’s how I took his remark when I heard it.
Maybe he meant that Bork would rule in favor of overturning RvW should an abortion case make it to the SCOTUS?
To be fair. I think there’s enough to nail Biden on but this isn’t it.
Maybe it’s not the most eloquent of statements but the implication, and I’m fairly certain he meant Bork would have helped to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Hey, I’d rather listen to nails on a chalkboard or even Hillary Clinton’s voice rather than Biden, but I’m pretty sure he meant that Bork would have favored overturning Roe v. Wade. That would be true, since Roe v. Wade is extra-Constitutional and Bork is a strict constructionist.
To be fair, I believe he was talking about the risk of overturning Roe v wade. It was the way I interpreted his remark at the time.
I gather what Joe was saying is that if Bork was on the court that Roe vs Wade would be overruled. That being said I’ve always said that America is a lesser nation without Bork on the supreme court. I think Palin could have pounced on Biden and pointed out that the Borking of Bork was the beginning of the nastiness of the curent political atmosphere.
Reaching me thinks. Every election cycle the topic of Roe vs Wade comes up. He (Biden) could have been, and more than likely was talking about the possibility of a challenge to Roe vs Wade, and that Bork would have been on the side of the challenger(s). It’s a scare tactic the Left assumes for their irresponsible constituency.
True. Bork’s seat eventually went to Kennedy, who supported the plurality decision in Planned Parenthood v Casey which upheld roe v wade. But that’s not what he said really, he is trying to claim credit for “Roe v Wade” and also “civil rights” - yikes. Kennedy did not overrule Roe v Wade purely on philosophy of upholding precedent, as opposed to a question of whether it was right to begin with. And frankly I can’t think of any cases on civil rights where Kennedy would have differed from Bork.
Rove stated that, while the media may not go after it, there are 10 specific instances that Biden is wrong on factually! Plus about 6 other instances that arguable.
You are all missing the main point.
He said that a judge should not be a strict interpreter of the law, but should have ideals. Of course those are not his exact words, since I can’t remember them exactly; I paraphrase.
What I was hoping she would say in reply: “ I can’t think of any thing that would scare me worse than going up before a judge that has preconceived notions. I want to go before a judge that will strictly interpret and go by the law.”
Just imagine. If every judge had his own idea about how the law reads, you would go into court victim to the whims of the judge as he got out of bed that morning. You would pray that he did not get out on the wrong side.
No, I thought it was clear he meant that with Robert Bork on the SCOTUS it would have become more likely that Roe v. Wade could have been overturned or at least significantly restricted in scope.
Where he opened himself up by mentioning his “change” in understanding of how judicial nominees are confirmed is that he and Ted Kennedy and fellow Demagogues totally TRASHED all traditions of comity and deceny and respect in the nomination process. I wish Sarah Barracuda had taken the opening to discuss how Biden savaged the nomination process and wrecked the traditional respect for a President’s prerogative to appoint qualified persons. The Demagogues no longer think that a Republican’s nominees are worthy of the most elementary respect, though of course if Breyer & Ginsburg had been trashed anything like the way that Bork and Thomas were trashed then the Demagogues would have declared Civil War II.
I wouldn’t call that a gaffe...I knew what he meant.
Maybe the guys down at Home Depot can straighten him out on it tomorrow?
Biden sure spews the BS at a rapid rate.
He obviously meant he’s prevented Roe v. Wade from being overturned — and he has, which makes him a lousy interpreter of the costitution and a moral monster.
Well, he got his history all screwed up, as another FReeper pointed out on this thread. Bork was "Borked" in 1987, so that had absolutely no effect on Roe v. Wade, which was decided in 1973. Actually, Biden was prabably foolish to bring up the issue of approving or disapproving judges on the basis of ideology - without being prompted by the moderator - because that's hardly a 'Rat strong point.
Incidentally, one other gaffe: referring to the vice presidency, Biden said it's covered in Article I of the Constitution, which makes it an executive office. Actually, Article II covers the executive branch, although Article I, which deals with the legislative branch, references the VP in terms of presiding over the Senate and casting the tie-breaking vote there when necessary. (Of course, he got in a gratuitous lick at Dick Cheney, saying that he was "dangerous" in his alleged expanded view of the powers of the vice presidency.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.