Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Robert Bork: Sotomayor Unqualified, Isn't 'Entirely Governed by Law'
NewsMax ^ | July 14, 2009 | By: Jim Meyers

Posted on 07/16/2009 10:01:29 AM PDT by Jim Robinson

Legal scholar and former U.S. Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork tells Newsmax he doesn't believe court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's assertion that she is "entirely governed by law," as he believes she should be.

In an exclusive interview, he also said Sotomayor, who's going through confirmation hearings before a Senate panel, should be disqualified from consideration because of a statement she made.

And Bork stated that the Roe v. Wade decision has been the "most dangerous" the Supreme Court has ever made because it has "embittered our politics."

See Video: Judge Robert Bork discusses Sonia Sotomayor and the Senate hearings - Click Here Now

Bork was solicitor general and was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals before President Ronald Reagan nominated him for the Supreme Court in 1987. The Democratic Senate rejected his nomination after a contentious debate, and the seat on the bench eventually went to Anthony Kennedy.

Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella observed that Bork's "savaging by the left" forever changed the way judges are confirmed, with politics and demographics becoming more important than competence and qualifications.

"That's entirely true," said Bork, whose latest book is "A Time to Speak — Selected Writings and Arguments."

"But the Supreme Court has only itself to blame for that. The Supreme Court made itself, starting in the 1950s, into an increasingly political institution, and once you're a political institution with that kind of power, people are going to fight to control the institution any way they can.

"In my case, I think the trigger was the fear that I might vote to overrule Roe against Wade."

Martella asked whether Sotomayor's statement that a Latina woman could make smarter decisions than a white male should have been "an immediate disqualifier."

"Yes," Bork stated...

(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bhojudicialnominees; bhoscotus; bork; scotus; sotomayor; unfit

1 posted on 07/16/2009 10:01:30 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

How did this man not get confirmed?!!


2 posted on 07/16/2009 10:06:33 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Judge Bork’s savaging by the liberal press and Congressional lowlifes still ranks high on my list of ‘most disappointing events in life’.


3 posted on 07/16/2009 10:07:01 AM PDT by WVRockDJ (Mountaineer by birth; USMC by choice; Christian by Grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Robert Bork, of any man in the USA, should be the most disgusted by the proceedings that have put both Ginsberg and Sotomayor on the SCOTUS.

Both are lightweights who will, and have, relied almost entirely on their staffs to give cover for their inability to articulate the law based on the Constitution of the United States.

Bork, on the other hand, was simply brilliant, and as a result, ultimately fatal to the liberals. He was ‘collateral damage’ in the runup to our current collectivist Kenyan president, and his sycophantic socialist fellow travelers in the Senate and the House.

Oh, how the mighty nation has fallen from within.


4 posted on 07/16/2009 10:09:09 AM PDT by ColoCdn (Neco eos omnes, Deus suos agnoset)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Ironically he was Bill and Hillary’s professor at Yale.


5 posted on 07/16/2009 10:10:57 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Jim, can you imagine what Bork, and even Justice Thomas must be thinking when they watch Graham and Cornyn fawning over Sotomayor? Bork and Thomas were essentially terrorized and humiliated by the Democrats, and THEY were qualified. Her apparent racism aside, this woman is not qualified to sit on the court.


6 posted on 07/16/2009 10:15:14 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

The verb is “to Bork”; the action should be aimed at Sotomayor!


7 posted on 07/16/2009 10:17:21 AM PDT by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

BUMP!


8 posted on 07/16/2009 10:18:09 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Change is not a plan; Hope is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

It makes my blood boil when I think of our young men and women overseas dying for our country, and watch these spineless Republicans speak well of an ultra left wing woman to whom our freedom and Constitution mean nothing.


9 posted on 07/16/2009 10:25:08 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
>i>And when asked what he believes has been the "most dangerous" Court ruling, Bork answered:

"I think it's proved to be Roe against Wade. We have very bitter politics over abortion.

"I understand it's different in Europe, where the issue is not nearly as explosive or as divisive, the reason being that in Europe by and large the issue is decided by legislatures. Each side fights it out, arrives at some kind of a conclusion, a compromise, and they go home deciding they can try again next year.

"Here, by contrast, voters and political parties are just told to shut up, and that makes them furious. So Roe against Wade, whatever else its demerits are, has really embittered our politics in ways that are most unhealthy."

Giving free rein to murder. What could be more dangerous???

10 posted on 07/16/2009 10:25:31 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20 (There is not enough combined intellect in the beltway to jumpstart a moron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
And Bork stated that the Roe v. Wade decision has been the "most dangerous" the Supreme Court has ever made because it has "embittered our politics."

How very different things would be had Robert Bork been confirmed.

Thanks for posting this, "Mr. Thompson" (giggle)

11 posted on 07/16/2009 10:29:19 AM PDT by MaggieCarta (We're all Detroiters now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Senator Jeff Sessions says he doesn’t think they’ll vote on Tuesday because they can’t get the paperwork to everyone to read in time.

Sotomayor is a liar. It’s so obvious. She uses her modulated voice and slow speech to speak down to the Republicans and ‘splain it to them. And that way she can use up all their time. MOST of her answers to everyone have been EVASIVE.

I pray to God that our emails to the Senate keep ALL Republicans and those few Moderate Democrats from Voting YEA.


12 posted on 07/16/2009 10:36:54 AM PDT by HighlyOpinionated (Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann in 2012. With Liz Cheney as Secretary of State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The swimmer led the fight against him and unfortunately succeeded.


13 posted on 07/16/2009 10:37:02 AM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

Her apparent racism aside, this woman is not qualified to sit on the court””

In this house, she isn’t qualified to walk my dog or feed hay to the horses.


14 posted on 07/16/2009 10:39:24 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
He was "Borked" by the senior swimmer from MA, Teddy Kennedy. NR called it a "bilious bugle blast"
15 posted on 07/16/2009 10:43:45 AM PDT by MaggieCarta (We're all Detroiters now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

and in addition to that she is too dumb


16 posted on 07/16/2009 10:43:50 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys--Reagan and Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

“and in addition to that she is too dumb”

Therrrrrrrrre ya go!!


17 posted on 07/16/2009 10:45:36 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Surprised no one has asked her what prenumbras she perceives in the Constitution. She asserts she will only interpret laws and not create but will she interpret or create constitutional law?


18 posted on 07/16/2009 10:46:20 AM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColoCdn

Ginsburg was the head attorney of the ACLU when Clinton nominated her. I was pretty surprised that there wasn’t even a modicum of outrage about Ginsburg’s recent comments that it was common knowledge way back when that abortion served the purpose of “getting rid of the undesirables” - now isn’t that sweet of her to straighten that out. Margaret Sanger is their hero, and she was all about eugenics for the poor and the minorities. The spineless Repubs didn’t give Ruthy any problems in her hearings, and Sonia is just fiddling while Lindsey and company go thru the motions. Geez, what has happened to Tom Coburn? He is coming across like a total moron these days?


19 posted on 07/16/2009 11:00:58 AM PDT by Sioux-san
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ColoCdn

Ginsburg was the head attorney of the ACLU when Clinton nominated her. I was pretty surprised that there wasn’t even a modicum of outrage about Ginsburg’s recent comments that it was common knowledge way back when that abortion served the purpose of “getting rid of the undesirables” - now isn’t that sweet of her to straighten that out. Margaret Sanger is their hero, and she was all about eugenics for the poor and the minorities. The spineless Repubs didn’t give Ruthy any problems in her hearings, and Sonia is just fiddling while Lindsey and company go thru the motions. Geez, what has happened to Tom Coburn? He is coming across like a total moron these days?


20 posted on 07/16/2009 11:00:58 AM PDT by Sioux-san
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

“How did this man not get confirmed?!!”

It may be fortunate that he wasn’t. As I recall in one of his books he said the 2nd ammendment wasn’t an individual right.


21 posted on 07/16/2009 11:01:31 AM PDT by Hacklehead (Liberalism is the art of taking what works, breaking it, and then blaming conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

It’s pretty obvious that he didn’t bat his eyelashes at the Congressmen enough.


22 posted on 07/16/2009 11:07:05 AM PDT by The Duke ("Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Democrat Party?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385; Tennessee Nana; AuntB; stephenjohnbanker; raybbr
How did Bork----an intellectual giant----not get confirmed?

When you look at ----and hear---- the inferior nominee we have now----it's even more nauseating.

There are thousands of distinguished jurists out there-with a judge's required demeanor-----who are 1000 times more qualified than this grinning, self-absorbed nom...........

Just makes me ill.

23 posted on 07/16/2009 11:08:34 AM PDT by Liz (When people fear govt, we have tyranny; when govt fears the people, we have freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

It’s sad a man of this caliber is on the outside looking in. This doesn’t speak well for our country.


24 posted on 07/16/2009 11:10:35 AM PDT by devistate one four (Back by popular demand: America love or leave it (GTFOOMC) TET68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

EXCERPT-—LETTER TO THE NY POST:

Sotomayor has an “us vs. them” attitude. She gave that away with her “wise Latina” put-down of white male judges, and she will use her bias to rationalize and shape her decisions.


25 posted on 07/16/2009 11:11:21 AM PDT by Liz (When people fear govt, we have tyranny; when govt fears the people, we have freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Liz

BUMP


26 posted on 07/16/2009 11:16:38 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: devistate one four

Bork couldn’t find the RKBA in the first ten amendments to the constitution. Had he been on the High Court, the recent “personal right” issue may have gone against gun ownership.


27 posted on 07/16/2009 11:19:41 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
Martella asked whether Sotomayor's statement that a Latina woman could make smarter decisions than a white male should have been "an immediate disqualifier."
"Yes," Bork stated...



I'm not so sure...frankly, I've noticed a conspicuous absence on the Supreme Court of incompetent yet self-important females with Latin surnames whose speech patterns are peppered with idiotic malapropisms.

Maybe we should relax our standards a little. ;-)
28 posted on 07/16/2009 11:37:23 AM PDT by Milton Miteybad (I am Jim Thompson. {Really.})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

I wonder what Miguel Estrada thinks as well.


29 posted on 07/16/2009 11:47:51 AM PDT by Right Cal Gal (Abraham Lincoln would have let Berkeley leave the Union without a fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Right Cal Gal

I couldn’t remember his name, thank you!


30 posted on 07/16/2009 11:54:22 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

I wish one, just ONE, Republican Senator would get in Leahy’s face and ask him if having Hispanics on the court was such a welcome idea, why he wrote such racist memos trying to keep Estrada off.


31 posted on 07/16/2009 11:58:58 AM PDT by Right Cal Gal (Abraham Lincoln would have let Berkeley leave the Union without a fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

_______________________________________________________________
Their Will Be Done: How the Supreme Court sows moral anarchy. Robert H. Bork Tuesday, July 12, 2005

What do the nomination of a replacement for Sandra Day O’Connor, constitutional law, and moral chaos have to do with one another? A good deal more than you may think.

In Federalist No. 2, John Jay wrote of America that “providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.” Such a people enjoy the same moral assumptions, the cement that forms a society rather than a cluster of groups.

Though Jay’s conditions have long been obsolete, until recently Americans did possess a large body of common moral assumptions rooted in our original Anglo-Protestant culture, and expressed in law. Now, however, a variety of disintegrating influences are undermining that unanimity, not least among them is the capture of constitutional law by an extreme liberationist philosophy. America is becoming a cacophony of voices proclaiming different, or no, truths.

Alexis de Tocqueville observed that “if each undertook himself to form all his opinions and to pursue the truth in isolation down paths cleared by him alone, it is not probable that a great number of men would ever unite in any common belief. . . . Without common ideas there is no common action, and without common action men still exist, but a social body does not.”

Contrast Tocqueville with Justices Harry Blackmun and Anthony Kennedy. Justice Blackmun wanted to create a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy because of the asserted “‘moral fact’ that a person belongs to himself and not others nor to society as a whole.”

Justice Kennedy, writing for six justices, did invent that right, declaring that “at the heart of [constitutional] liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Neither of these vaporings has the remotest basis in the actual Constitution, and neither has any definable meaning other than that a common morality may not be sustained by law if a majority of justices prefer that each individual follow his own desires.

Once the justices depart, as most of them have, from the original understanding of the principles of the Constitution, they lack any guidance other than their own attempts at moral philosophy, a task for which they have not even minimal skills. Yet when it rules in the name of the Constitution, whether it rules truly or not, the court is the most powerful branch of government in domestic policy. The combination of absolute power, disdain for the historic Constitution and philosophical incompetence is lethal.

The court’s philosophy reflects, or rather embodies and advances the liberationist spirit of our times. In moral matters, each man is a separate sovereignty. In its insistence on radical personal autonomy, the court assaults what remains of our stock of common moral beliefs. That is all the more insidious because the public and the media take these spurious constitutional rulings as not merely legal conclusions but moral teachings supposedly incarnate in our most sacred civic document.

That teaching is the desirability, as the sociologist Robert Nisbet put it, of the “break-up of social molecules into atoms, of a generalized nihilism toward society and culture as the result of individualistic hedonism and the fragmenting effect of both state and economy.”

He noted that both Edmund Burke and Tocqueville placed much of the blame for such developments on the intellectual class—in our time dominant in, for example, the universities, the media, church bureaucracies and foundation staffs—a class to which judges belong and to whose opinions they respond. Thus ever-expanding rights continually deplete America’s bank of common morality.

Consider just a few of the court’s accomplishments: The justices have weakened the authority of other institutions, public and private, such as schools, businesses and churches; assisted in sapping the vitality of religion through a transparently false interpretation of the establishment clause; denigrated marriage and family; destroyed taboos about vile language in public; protected as free speech the basest pornography, including computer-simulated child pornography; weakened political parties and permitted prior restraints on political speech, violating the core of the First Amendment=s guarantee of freedom of speech; created a right to abortion virtually on demand, invalidating the laws of all 50 states; whittled down capital punishment, on the path, apparently, to abolishing it entirely; mounted a campaign to normalize homosexuality, culminating soon, it seems obvious, in a right to homosexual marriage; permitted discrimination on the basis of race and sex at the expense of white males; and made the criminal justice system needlessly slow and complex, tipping the balance in favor of criminals.

Justice O’Connor, a warm, down-to-earth, and very likeable person, joined many, though not all of these bold attempts to remake America attempt to remake America. Whatever one may think of think these outcomes as matters of policy, not one is authorized by the Constitution, and some are directly contrary to it. All of them however, are consistent with the left-liberalist impulse that advances moral anarchy.

Democratic senators’ filibusters of the president’s previous President’s previous judicial nominees demonstrate liberals’ determination to retain the court as their political weapon. They claim that conservative critics of the court threaten the independence of the judiciary, as though independence is a warrant to abandon the Constitution for personal predilection.

The court’s critics are not angry without cause; they have been provoked.

The court has converted itself from a legal institution to a political one, and has made so many basic and unsettling changes in American government, life and culture that a counterattack was inevitable, and long overdue. If the critics’ rhetoric is sometimes overheated, it is less so than that of some Democratic senators and their interest-group allies.

The leaders of the Democratic Party in the Senate are making it the party of moral anarchy, and they will fight to keep the court activist and liberal. The struggle over the Supreme Court is not just about law: it is about the future of our culture.

To restore the Court’s integrity will require a minimum of three appointments of men and women who have so firm an understanding of the judicial function that they will not drift left once on the bench. Choosing, and fighting for, the right man or woman to replace Justice O’Connor is the place to start. That will be difficult, but the stakes are the legitimate scope of self-government and an end to judicially imposed moral disorder.

Mr. Bork, a former judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit), is a fellow at the Hudson Institute and editor of “A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values.”


32 posted on 07/16/2009 12:01:46 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Cal Gal

“I wish one, just ONE, Republican Senator would get in Leahy’s face and ask him if having Hispanics on the court was such a welcome idea, why he wrote such racist memos trying to keep Estrada off.”

Don’t we all.


33 posted on 07/16/2009 12:03:24 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

““A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values.””

None of us do, Mr. Bork.


34 posted on 07/16/2009 12:06:23 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Pass the upchuck cup.


35 posted on 07/16/2009 1:33:47 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (Pray for, and support our troops(heroes) !! And vote out the RINO's!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Liz

Sotomayor is an affirmative action token aimed at nailing the Hispanic vote, nothing more. The democrats don’t really care if she is qualified or not, she is the right minority in their agenda. Sadly, most Americans are incapable of following ther truth because they will be spoonfed the democrat criminal enterprise lies via the enemedia who serve them exclusively. An affirmative action pres__ent makes affirmative action apponitments and nominations ... are we really that surprised?


36 posted on 07/16/2009 1:37:13 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984

Olds Rocket 88 Submarine Commander Teddy Kennedy’s speech “Judge Bork’s world...” is one of the lowest and most swinish speeches ever made in the Senate.


37 posted on 07/16/2009 2:01:09 PM PDT by Ole Okie (American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Sotomayor Thinks (your name here) Is Stupid

and that all senators are spineless tools.
38 posted on 07/16/2009 2:42:40 PM PDT by Avoiding_Sulla (Yesterday's Left = today's status quo. Thus "CONSERVATIVE": a conflicted label for battling tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Avoiding_Sulla
You can substitute any issue of right and wrong for the name 'Sanford', democrats are liars because they are liberals, Sotomayor is a liberal, Sotomayor is a liar, a practiced deceiver, just the sort the criminal enterprise democrat party loves to promote into high places of power ...


39 posted on 07/16/2009 2:46:29 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

bump


40 posted on 07/16/2009 2:46:54 PM PDT by Captain Beyond (The Hammer of the gods! (Just a cool line from a Led Zep song))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Thank you Judge Bork, excellent
I have said it on FR many many times: SCOTUS is job #1 and to the extent GWB wasted political capital on Iraq and “war on terror” cost R’s the last election is a tragedy of the first order
yes I got flamed on FR for these comments but I repeat nutty muslims 5000 miles from us have done far last damage to this country compared to what the Libtards have done, so well outlined by the Judge here.


41 posted on 07/16/2009 3:41:38 PM PDT by Piers-the-Ploughman (Just say no to circular firing squads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead; Eric in the Ozarks
He rightly opposes the application of the Bill of Rights to the states, and he long ago criticized the manner in which Scotus “incorporated” the BOR through the 14th Amendment’s right of due process.

Each of our fifty states have republican governments. If their people do not wish to recognize our God given rights, that is their problem.

It is a pity he does not sit on the Supreme Court.

42 posted on 07/16/2009 5:30:07 PM PDT by Jacquerie (We are in a civil war. The Left is winning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: HighlyOpinionated

Senator Sessions email bounced on me anybody have a correct one?
Here is the one I used: senator@sessions.senate.gov

Did he give any indication how he was going to vote?


43 posted on 07/16/2009 5:38:35 PM PDT by 4Godsoloved..Hegave (Never explain yourself, Your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Bork’s problem was two-fold.

One, he was entirely too forward and open in his nomination hearings. He answered the questions in a fortright manner. The liberals (Leahy, Kennedy, etc) were already suspicious of him and used a number of his statements against him. By saying that, I mean to say that his confirmation hearing remarks were deliberately taken out of context.

Two, NARAL, which carried (and still carries) considerable clout amongt Dems in the Senate was 100% convinced that Bork was gonna vote to over-turn Roe v Wade. I’m not sure what they based that on. I don’t recall Bork ever saying that he would vote that way. I believe that they took some of his previous writings in an out of cntext manner too.

There has been a long-term consequence of the savaging of Robert Bork back in ‘87. Virtually, every nominee (since then) has been evasive and virtually unresponsive when faced with a question regarding their legal philosophy. The most recent two nominees (Roberts and Sotomayor) have proved that very well. In short, it is impossible to get a feel anymore for where a nominee stands of many issues.


44 posted on 07/16/2009 8:18:31 PM PDT by MplsSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson