Robert Bork was interviewed by Tucker Carlson and didn't have good things to say about the Miers nomination:
TUCKER CARLSON, MSNBC HOST: Are you impressed by the president's choice of Harriet Miers?
JUDGE ROBERT BORK, FORMER SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Not a bit. I think it's a disaster on every level.
CARLSON: Why? Explain the levels on which it's a disaster.
BORK: Well, the first one is, that this is a woman who's undoubtedly as wonderful a person as they say she is, but so far as anyone can tell she has no experience with constitutional law whatever. Now it's a little late to develop a constitutional philosophy or begin to work it out when you're on the court already. So that--I'm afraid she's likely to be influenced by factors, such as personal sympathies and so forth, that she shouldn't be influenced by. I don't expect that she can be, as the president says, a great justice.
I agree with him, of course. But I still chuckle a bit at Bork, who would have been the ultimate disaster as a Justice, taking such shots at someone else.
- Log in to post comments
It is relatively apparent that Bork is still upset at the fact that he was "borked" in the 1980s. He was a nut then, he provided further evidence for the fact that he was a nut in the books that he published since then.
When will these people like Bork just shut up?
They never will just shut up. They make money off of this clap trap.
Left wingers have no problem with the judicial activism because they agree with the agenda. I'd like to see the left wing meltdown if that activism went in a conservative direction. There would be liberal crying from coast to coast about the injustice of it all.
THe hypocrisy of the left never ends.
For what it is worth (personal POV differences aside), I agree with you and make just that point in this piece: Birds of a Feather
It is a disaster for all of us (Americans).
Bull, mBasil.
"Left wingers" have no problem with the PRINCIPLE of "judicial activism" (IE, judges actually being able to rule on things effectively...). We would have a problem with specific acts, yes.
But we wouldn't be screaming that judicial activism is always wrong - we'd be screaming that the judges who made that specific decision are nutcases.
Whereas you, in the wacky right-wing, have problems with the principle of "judicial activism" for now ... but, like Arnie, want it when the will of the people has been made obvious and doesn't agree with you.
So - who's the hypocrites? The people who say "Yes, this is a good principle, but this specific implementation is bad", or the people who say "This principle is evil! Except in these cases where it helps us, there it's okay?"
mBasil wrote:
The phrase "judicial activism" is nothing more than a meaningless catchphrase that the right invokes whenever a judge does something they don't like. There is no objective and consistent meaning for the phrase. Conservatives invoke it to mean "unelected judges overturning laws passed by the will of the people", but if they don't like those laws, they will also rush into court to get a judge to overturn those laws. If you want a few examples, I give you Gonzales v. Oregon, which the Supreme Court heard the other day, the lawsuits against the California stem cell initiative, the lawsuits against the California medical marijuana law, and the entire ridiculous Schaivo case, where conservatives tried to get both state and federal courts to rewrite Florida law. By any coherent definition of judicial activism, there is plenty of conservative judicial activism out there. And yes, the left screams about it just like the right does and in both cases they think in the most simplistic and partisan terms, as you are doing here.
I must confess to a lack of knowledge here in that I'm not certain of a judge's role. Would it be correct to say that legislators represent the people and that judges represent the constitution?
Hence, if a law is unconstitutional, shouldn't a judge overturn it?
Ed, I agree with your comment, but will merely point out that, in most states the judiciary is elected. They are not "un-elected judges." They comprise the best judiciary that money can buy.
I don't know whether the judiciary in Michigan is elected. The judiciary was certainly elected in Ohio 35 years ago, when I was living there.
This "un-elected judiciary" silliness has got to be brought to a halt.
Raj... Federal judges are appointed and not elected. The right's screaming about "unelected judges" really means "judges appointed by a Democratic president." My guess is that they get that one wrong a lot of the time, too.
decrepitoldfool wrote:
I've never heard it put that way, but I really like that formulation. The courts were designed not to be representative quite intentionally.
That is certaintly true regardless of how one portrays the roles.
raj wrote:
That's what makes the "judicial activism" charge so amusing. I actually heard social conservatives complain about Judge Greer in the Schaivo case with the "unelected judges subverting the will of the people" line, which was wrong on every possible level - A) Greer was elected; B) Greer followed the legislative statutes (i.e. the will of the people) to the letter; and C) the polls consistently showed that the people agreed with his decision. That's exactly what I mean when I say this is empty rhetoric. They'll use it even when it can't possibly apply.
Art Kaufmann at October 10, 2005 10:26 AM
Art, just to remind you, the federal judiciary isn't the only judiciary in the US. Most cases are decided within state court systems, and most of the judges in those systems are either elected or subject to recall at the behest of votes by the people. As an example of the latter, I will remind you of the case of Rose Byrd, one time justice of the CA Supreme Court, who was recalled after some people got upset about some opinions that she authored.
Not only that, but it should be apparent that judges--even on the federal courts--are placed on their various benches via a political process. The political process varies, but they are politial processes nonetheless. Moreover, judges can be removed by political processes.
The idea that judges are not subject to a political process--which the "unelected judges" mantra suggests--is nonsense in the extreme. The political process may differ from state to state and from the state level to the federal level, but the fact is that the judiciary is subject to a political process.
Ed, regarding your last post, I agree with it 100%. If the social conservatives (in regards the Schiavo case, don't like the governing law they should attempt to get it changed in the legislature. I know that you know why they don't. They want the issue, not the change.