The View From 1987

Decrying judicial activism, Robert Bork says choosing Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court was 'a bad mistake.'

By Stuart Taylor Jr. | NEWSWEEK
Published Jun 20, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jun 29, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: gvillagran3 @ 06/23/2009 3:43:53 PM

    Debunked.

    Obama was inagurated in January 2009 correct? That would make his presidency approximately 5 months old. Now Mr. Debunked here wants for President Obama to take over the worst recession since the great depression, the worst financial crisis ever, two unfinished wars, and a terrible unemployment crisis all of it inherited, and turn it arround in say 4 months to keep him happy.

    You find this rational debunked? Do you find rational for you to say on the one hand that this is Obama's economy an entire 5 months into his presidency, making him fully responsible.... But have us forget, and by extension avoiding resposability of the 8 years that produced this mess we find ourselves in.... Mess that now Obama has to fix in 5 months?

    HOW CONVENIENT. You and your fellow Kool Aid drinkers start a war on false pretencess, make it a mess, destroy our economy, destroy our financial system, put million on the unemployment lines DO IT FOR YEARS...... and then just like that , you turn around and say, is Obama's mess !!!! NO PAL, IS YOURS, Obama is just the guy trying to fix it.... Big difference.

    Furthermore, since you require 5 months for problems of monumental proportions to be solved by Democrats, I would appreciate if you demand the same from your Republican friends by demanding that they at least elect a leader that can pass the laughing test....For they can't even do that.

    Finally you did not understand my remark about learning from the past, if you want to fix your future....... I ment YOUR past as a Republicanfor you are the party in trouble. You some how interpreted my remarks as a comparison with Obama's performance compared to Bush's. For if Obama is repeating Bush's mistakes what would those be debunked? I don't see Obama starting a war because he has gut feelings, or looking the other way while regulations for Wallstreet go out the window, or making matters worst by trying to become financialy responsible right in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the grerat depression, or giving stem cells full constirutional rights, and on, and on....So you are going to have to elaborate what mistakes are you talking about, because frankly I have no clue where you come from on this one.

    And please this time if you don't mind loose the hyperbole, the grand standing, and

    • Posted By: Luking @ 07/16/2009 1:02:51 AM

      Liberals are the kool-aid drinkers....

      The liberal useful idiots voted for a man who has appointed czars.....who are answerable to no one but hiim. obama and his family have gone on moe trips around the world than all the presidents combines.
      Michelle has a pair of earrings that cost $25,000 and a new purse that costs $6,000..
      Obama said he would get the troops out of the middle east within a year....yeah, right.
      We are losing more jobs since the great depression, if even then. .
      The medical mess that he wants to create will cause the deaths of millions of people, by not being able to see a doctor in time.
      Yes, Obama is creating a mess. I just hope that we are able to get out of it.
      God help us, if we can't.

      • Posted By: Hagbard Celine @ 07/16/2009 12:45:06 PM

        "The liberal useful idiots voted for a man who has appointed czars.....who are answerable to no one but hiim."

        Are you referring to Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, or Obama with that statement? Because it applies to all of them.

    • Posted By: wbramh @ 06/23/2009 10:31:46 PM

      Give up.
      The only people left in the Republican Party are bigots and thieves.
      For the time being, the old Republican intellectual guard is laying low - perhaps even looking for a third party to hang their hats. While I've never agreed with their politics, I hope they survive and aren't permanently tainted by these orthogenetic backwards who claim to represent the Republican Party and "Real America." Personally, I believe we could use two more major contending parties - Moderate Republicans in one and Progressive Democrats in another. Essentially, those two "future" parties are what we used to vote for before insanity and mediocrity became the norm.

      • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/23/2009 10:51:01 PM

        What "old Republican intellectual guard" is this? I barely discern an intellectual guard of the Republican Party. Most of their old intellectual guard is getting old and dying. The Democrats have attracted many of the younger intellectuals. The Republicans need to rebuild their intellectual guard.

        I agree with your assessment that there are three political parties. But all I see in the news is the backwards Republican Party and the Progressive Democrats. I hope the Moderate Republican Party becomes visible soon, because I can't wait to register for that party.

        • Posted By: wbramh @ 06/24/2009 2:17:00 AM

          True.
          The intellectuals in the Republican Party are sick, dead and dying, but the handful of survivors of this current and horrible inquisition from the extreme right will once again find their voice. As a Progressive Democrat, I'm stuck in a party whose politicians practice the politics of the of old Republican Party, but without the conviction - just the pay-offs. I suppose we're both orphans.
          Come back Adlai !
          Come back Ike!
          We miss you, dearly.

    • Posted By: Debunked! @ 06/23/2009 4:09:33 PM

      • Posted By: Debunked! @ 06/23/2009 4:19:26 PM

        Newsweek, did me dirty......... I had my response all ready and when I hit post your comment, I was sent to the log in page and my response was lost, now I have to repost.

        Give me a minute to get my thoughts together

        • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/23/2009 5:30:47 PM

          Yea, this is a common problem Debunked!. Just go to "View all comments" rather than posting right after the article. You might still have to sign in, but you will post your comment properly. Hopefully this helps and Newsweek eventually corrects this issue.

      • Posted By: Debunked! @ 06/23/2009 4:36:50 PM

        There is no doubt that Bush and the GOP (when they were the majority) started the mess that we are in and they paid a heavy price for it..........Obama and the Dems criticized them relentlessly and the criticism was deserved but what Obama and the Dems have decided to finish what the other side started and it makes no sense.

        The reality is this.........Bush is no longer in office the GOP are the minority. The current policies belong to Obama and the Dems and this is why I am currently criticizing them NOT the GOP and Bush!

        Obama admitted that we are operating in a deficit and we have no money so why is he continuing to propose big spending. How can you continue to propose to spend money you don't have? Pretty soon, China is going to close the bank. You say Obama's been in office for 5 months,,,,,,,,,,,,,ok, fine.......but within his five months he have spent more than all of the Presidents before him. THat may not be a major concern for you but it definitely is for me. Generally, when you have a deficit-----YOU CUT SPENDING. The states understand this and most Americans understand this and are doing just that but the Feds do the opposite. If you continue to spend what you don't have, you dig yourself into a hole that is harder to get out of and who have to pay for it----------you guessed it---ME, YOU and our children and grandchildren.

        If you see your child going on a reckless path------do you say well it's only been 5 months, so I am gong to stay out of it and hope my child begin to make better decisions or are you going to do whatever you can to immediately help the child that you love so much get back on track?

        We all know that we are not going to get out of this recession over night. However, MOST of us know and understand that if you continue to spend what you don't have then all you are doing is making the problem worse......not fixing the problem!

        This is no longer about Bush, Bush is gone. Whether you like it or not, this is Obama's economy...........however, unfortunately it will be the American people who will deeply pay for what Bush started and Obama is finishing at a more reckless pace. Hell, I will argue that many Americans are already paying a price.........and it is only going to get worse!

        • Posted By: basedrum777 @ 06/23/2009 4:48:05 PM

          How can someone who fully believes what you just wrote wirte something as stupid as (paraphrasing) Sotomayor should refuse the nomination because Obama didn't get elected or wasn't born in the country. You don't think that a 100's of conservatives would've turned over every rock in America to find either of those two things??? You could exclude NC and OH (just in case there was voter fraud) and you'd still have Obama win I believe.

          • Posted By: Debunked! @ 06/23/2009 4:55:46 PM

            If my comment was so stupid, why respond? Actually, why would someone take the time to respond to a stupid comment ESPECIALLY if it wasn't targeted at them?

            You have your views and I have mine-----let's leave it at that---

  • Posted By: PHIL BITTLE @ 06/20/2009 6:53:46 PM

    ROBERT BORK ... IS THAT OLD FART STILL ALIVE ... ?

    • Posted By: Luking @ 07/16/2009 1:07:09 AM

      A typical reply by a liberal. More and more liberalls are beginning to wake up and see what is going on.....and it ain't good.

    • Posted By: asisoid @ 06/22/2009 2:34:08 PM

      No actually, they did the interview post-mortem. What a world we live in huh?

      The 10th amendment is the best amendment. I agree with Bork's opinion on Roe v. Wade. The supreme court has no right make that decision. It should be in the hands of the people.

      • Posted By: Fridge @ 06/22/2009 2:59:58 PM

        How about just allowing women to vote on it? That would be the best way. Better yet, only fertile women. No women past menopause allowed to vote.

        • Posted By: tyrone302 @ 06/23/2009 2:15:05 PM

          because it takes two to tangle, no matter how you slice it. We ALL need to vote on that one. And soon, since it is legal for a baby to be terminated due to inconvenience, what'll happen with the advanced in age and infirm? Aldus Huxley's "A Brave New World" comes to mind.

          • Posted By: wbramh @ 06/23/2009 10:43:06 PM

            Yes.
            And women should be forced to carry dead fetuses and the children of rapists.
            The difference in our extreme arguments (if you didn't notice) is that nobody who believes in a woman's right to choose believes in your "Brave New World" scenarios.
            On the other hand, anti-abortion groups openly oppose ALL abortions, even in cases of incest, rape, or the survival of the mother.

          • Posted By: basedrum777 @ 06/23/2009 4:40:03 PM

            The elderly and the infirm are not part of a person's body before the decision was to be made. Big difference.

      • Posted By: wbramh @ 06/23/2009 10:38:01 PM

        Yes. The people should interpret the Constitution - not justices.
        But do we use my people or yours?

      • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/23/2009 3:30:54 PM

        If woman 9th and 14th amendment right is to be vote on, how about you 1st amendment rights be vote on?

      • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/23/2009 2:26:22 PM

        The judiciary's traditional role and purpose in America are, in part, to help counter the so-called "tyranny of the masses".

      • Posted By: lvbartman @ 06/22/2009 5:42:50 PM

        You people can never get through your head that the civil rights of American citizens are not subject to popularity contests!!!

  • Posted By: Luking @ 07/16/2009 12:51:20 AM

    Bork would have been a very good Supreme Court Justice, but, of course, the liberals didn't seem to want that.

  • Posted By: joannvanmeter @ 07/12/2009 2:44:36 PM

    So what should she do to be other than a bad choice for the Supreme Court - sell out the country for the favors of a president in a Saturday Night Massacre. Credibility you don't have!

    • Posted By: downsteamjim @ 07/15/2009 10:42:47 PM

      Are you implying that Borke broke the law? If so what law?

  • Posted By: BeijingBob1 @ 06/30/2009 5:03:17 AM

    Republicans should vote against her nomination and not worry about lossing the illegal Latin vote that they don't get anyway.

  • Posted By: Paul 52 @ 06/25/2009 11:02:24 AM

    "As it's currently composed, this is sometimes called a conservative court.
    I don't see it at all. It's a very left-leaning, liberal court."

    Well, if anyone needed any proof at all that Robert Bork was treated ABSOLUTELY FAIRLY by the Senate that rejected him, it's the above exchange.

    Bork once said that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was legislation of "unsurpassed ugliness." Now he makes it clear that this was not his only extremist position.

    He is a right wing lunatic, with emphasis on the lunatic.

  • Posted By: FentonG @ 06/25/2009 8:37:37 AM

    Obama's words: "But you have to be able to stand in somebody else???s shoes and see through their eyes and get a sense of how the law might work or not work in practical day-to-day living." 22 may 2009 C-Span Interview

    Folks, the role of judges is NOT to stand in anyone's shoes, but to rule on the LAW, which is BLIND in all cases! The influence of empathy should be on the legislature, not the judicial branch. The swinging pendulum of public emotions rightly affects legislative acts (civil rights, suffrage, smoking, etc). The judicial branch should apply strict constitutional jurisprudence in their decisions; the role of "empathy" or "seeing things through someone else's eyes" have their roles when a parent makes a decision for their children, but it truly has no place in civil society.

    Liberals would be foaming at the mouth if any president recommended a judge who was "empathetic to the plight of business persons or even non-minorities".

    The judge's statement on Latina "wisdom" and the president's belief in a judge's personal experiences influencing decisions should give every CLEAR thinking American concern. Let's take the racial garbage out of the discussion and debate the merits of their words.

    She disqualified herself with her words, and he ought to chose his teleprompter words better....

  • Posted By: FentonG @ 06/25/2009 8:37:03 AM

    Obama's words: "But you have to be able to stand in somebody else???s shoes and see through their eyes and get a sense of how the law might work or not work in practical day-to-day living." 22 may 2009 C-Span Interview

    Folks, the role of judges is NOT to stand in anyone's shoes, but to rule on the LAW, which is BLIND in all cases! The influence of empathy should be on the legislature, not the judicial branch. The swinging pendulum of public emotions rightly affects legislative acts (civil rights, suffrage, smoking, etc). The judicial branch should apply strict constitutional jurisprudence in their decisions; the role of "empathy" or "seeing things through someone else's eyes" have their roles when a parent makes a decision for their children, but it truly has no place in civil society.

    Liberals would be foaming at the mouth if any president recommended a judge who was "empathetic to the plight of business persons or even non-minorities".

    The judge's statement on Latina "wisdom" and the president's belief in a judge's personal experiences influencing decisions should give every CLEAR thinking American concern. Let's take the racial garbage out of the discussion and debate the merits of their words.

    She disqualified herself with her words, and he ought to chose his teleprompter words better....

  • Posted By: jdd200 @ 06/24/2009 11:35:31 PM

    Obama did not state, nor did he imply, that empathy was the "key standard" of his nomination. He mentioned empathy along with several other standards for his supreme court nomination. The writer/interviewer owes the readers an apology and retraction

  • Posted By: I'm all in @ 06/23/2009 1:44:59 PM

    The Republican Party is getting unfair criticism here at NW. It is a party of INCLUSION. They include the white Supremist Racist Hate Groups, the Neo Nazi Militiass, the Big business tycood who fleece failing companies at the expense of their employees pension plans, the big drug companies that pratice protectioniam and charge 50 time more that the medice shoult and the tobacco companies that target children for addiction. Inclusion at it's worse. How could any moral person be associated with this scum of the earth?

    • Posted By: wbramh @ 06/23/2009 10:16:48 PM

      That's why I refer to them not as the "Party of No" but the "PArty of Hate."
      When Palin began her disgusting "he's a terrorist" tirade against then candidate Obama (and put his life in danger), I believe a lot of people, Republican and members of the MSM, began to distance themselves from the Republican Party. Of course, as soon as she was allowed to open her mouth without a TelePrompter she proved herself to be a dangerous idiot.
      Sometimes good press is the result of good thinking.
      Perhaps the Republican Party could use more of the latter if they expect to enjoy more of the former.

    • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/23/2009 5:43:48 PM

      "It is a party of INCLUSION. "

      Yes, is include all religious whackjob.

    • Posted By: halffull72 @ 06/23/2009 3:22:22 PM

      Two words for you "spell check"

      • Posted By: basedrum777 @ 06/23/2009 4:44:43 PM

        Can't argue with the content though...

  • Posted By: gvillagran3 @ 06/23/2009 1:49:22 PM

    debunked.

    Is not Kool Aid I am drinking, but reality I am looking at.

    Or is it Kool Aid that makes me see 3 elections losses that transformed the GOP from full control, into full retreat?
    Is it kool aid that makes me see that the approval ratings of Obama are just about equal to those of Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, and Newt Gingrish...... COMBINED ?
    Is it kool aid that make me see that Fox is very much a part of your so called "Media"? Last I checked Fox is the Network that panders 24 HRs to the Right Wing . If you can complain about MSNBC, or CBS, or wherever "Liberal" media networks that do try to produce news, not sound bites, then you most be going nuts over the absolute one sided views of Fox correct? , or in your world you only complain about the "media" coverage you don't like?

    So I think that the one that needs to ease off the Kool Aid is you my friend. It starts by understanding that the best way for a better future comes from understanding the mistakes of the past...... Not by pretending that the future will fix itself up, because you guys are so great that we Americans just can't stand the tough of not letting you get us into a few more unecesary wars, go after gay people for getting married, give full rights to cells, give more lip services to fiscal responsibility, and send us another example of un-equaled competence that was George W. Bush.

    But Obama is going down in the polls you say? Pal get serious, after seeing Bush stumble from one mess to another for 8 full years, I feel lucky just to be able to see a president that can actually speak the English lenguage correctly.



    • Posted By: wbramh @ 06/23/2009 10:07:03 PM

      Very well put.

    • Posted By: Debunked! @ 06/23/2009 3:00:47 PM

      Sorry but I stopped drinking kool aid a very long time ago.

      As far as Fox News...........again, just think on it. Do you really think it is coincidence that the bulk of the MSM that pandered and cheerleaded for Obama are now experiencing rating difficulties and the one that didn't, Fox News, ratings are continuing to increase? Why do you think this is happened? My guess is as more and more people continue to wake up, Fox;s ratings will continue to go up!

      I don't know why you keep bringing up Limbaugh, Cheney and Gingrich. Limbaugh is a radio show host with a large audience and obviously a threat to many. Gingrich and Cheney are private citizens and last I heard, CHENEY had a higher approval rating than democratic elected official, Nancy Pelosi!

      And your statement about learning from the mistakes of the past is a complete joke! Apparently you havent noticed that Obama and the Dems have decided to continue with the mistakes of the past but at a more reckless pace that is only hurting this country more. Even Obama is now predicting (what many of all already knew) that the unemployment rate is going to continue to rise over 10% but thank God for the Stimulus bill that had to be passed right away because it was going to create over 3-4 million jobs! First the stimulus was going to create millions of job and then it was going to save or create millions of jobs-----what is the new line from the administration now?. (yeah I am being sarcastic!)......remember when the Obama admin said that the unemployment rate was not going to reach 9%?

      The bash and blame Bush lines are SO OLD and losing validty. Bush is no longer president. This is Obama's economy, Obama's wars and Obama's problems-----NOT BUSH!

      If you look beyond the surface you will see that a great percentage of whats being presented is not how it really is......

      • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/23/2009 3:19:23 PM

        "As far as Fox News...........again, just think on it. Do you really think it is coincidence that the bulk of the MSM that pandered and cheerleaded for Obama are now experiencing rating difficulties and the one that didn't, Fox News, ratings are continuing to increase? "

        Is maybe because Fox News viewers is unemployed, is sit around house all day watching TV?

        • Posted By: Debunked! @ 06/23/2009 3:40:36 PM

          GROW UP!!!!!!

          • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/23/2009 5:45:03 PM

            Why so much the angry? Uday only propose hypothesis.

            Uday wish you good luck with find job.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 06/23/2009 6:09:43 PM

    This is not to say however, that the GOP will not move to confirm Sotomayor. Racism [on the portion of her supporters] is a major factor. Indeed, the best NEWSWEAKS Jon Alter could come up with is that the ''GOP will lose the Hispanics'' if they do not confirm Sonia, creating a prima facie racist platform.[ so much for Obamas ''post-racial'' America ]. The ''cant be any worse than Souter'' cry will be raised, and that will be that.
    We will expect the usual hostility shown to not only a ''post-racial''America but also to business on the portion of Sotomayor as her opinions illistrate.[DIDDEN was an especially wretched Sotomayor opinion that backed statist extortion of the private citizen,while NEW HAVEN does not move this nation one whit closer to a post racial future]. The GOP deciding that the bigger fish they have to fry come in the region of healthcare, and will thus toss Obama this bone, while ensuring that he is denied others.

    • Posted By: wbramh @ 06/23/2009 10:06:29 PM

      Actually, (rightly or wrongly) over 70% of Judge Sotomayer's opinions have favored big business over the little guy, so I'd hate to see the judicial record of the judges you would prefer.
      The "Sotomayor is a racist" cry from the far right is the same tired tripe they have used for years to claim reverse discrimination in favor of minorities. It's so much easier to pull out old crapola argument #64 than come up with new fantasies to support their own prejudices.
      Judge Sotomayor will endure and President Obama will be President for 8 years.
      Thankfully, the public is done with the Party of Hate.

  • Posted By: pjmarnj @ 06/22/2009 7:08:29 PM

    Any person who says he/she is better than someone else because of sex or heritage is not fit to be a human much less a judge. Seems that Sotomayer is so sensitive to criticism that she immediately quite her all girl's club. Do we really want someone who has two faces?

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/22/2009 7:37:30 PM

      The quote you are referring to from Sotomayor's Berkeley lecture was taken out of context. The full lecture can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1. Sotomayor is not some racist who thinks that Latino women make better judges than white men. In fact, Sotomayor implies that she feels otherwise in her lecture.

      • Posted By: wbramh @ 06/23/2009 9:52:43 PM

        Correct.
        But it doesn't stop the MSM from parroting the Wingnut meme.
        Apparently, neither one of them can read more than a headline into any subject..
        It's was very intelligent and insightful speech. Too bad it was lost on many.

    • Posted By: I'm all in @ 06/22/2009 9:12:49 PM

      Thanks for pointing out sotomayor's sensativity. I was against her, but now you've convinced me to support her.

  • Posted By: MKustra999 @ 06/22/2009 9:33:55 PM

    Now I know why Judge Bork was "Borked" ...

    • Posted By: wbramh @ 06/23/2009 9:08:54 PM

      When I hear the word "Bork" it conjures up the image of an irritating Swedish rock group - or perhaps a robotic enemy of the Starship Enterprise. I guess that;'s because I've spent so many years trying to forget the off-the-wall Wingnut judge with whom the ever law-abiding Richard Nixon tried to stick us. Then again, if it wasn't for Bork, we would not have been blessed with David Souter. Out of the ashes...

  • Posted By: wesmenno @ 06/22/2009 5:33:21 PM

    And we care about Bork...why?

    Other than as proof that some people are just too mean to die?

  • Posted By: unsubscribe_me @ 06/22/2009 10:40:58 PM

    Bork says you won't learn the meaning of the Constitution from the Court. The exact opposite is true; its ONLY meaning is that given it by the Court. It is too vague to have any meaning on its own. Thanks be to God this conservative activist never made it to the Court.

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/23/2009 12:31:02 AM

      Let's review the full quote:

      Question: Any particular issues or cases come to mind?
      Bork: No. I've read them, but I no longer worry about those things, because I don't teach it anymore. In fact I refuse to teach constitutional law, because it's so obviously politics and not law. The incoherence of some of those opinions is astounding. If you want to know what the constitution means, you will not learn it from the court.

      Clearly Bork is criticizing the Court and suggesting that the Court has poorly interpreted the Constitution. In particular, Bork thinks the Court's opinion has been based on politics and has been incoherent. He is not denying the obvious that the Court gives the Constitution meaning by interpreting it.

      Please try carefully reading what Bork ACTUALLY says and not what you would like to think Bork said.

      • Posted By: unsubscribe_me @ 06/23/2009 12:46:34 AM

        Bork cannot be so naive as to think constitutional law is anything BUT politics, by its very nature. We're not dealing with a multivolume penal code, where the legislature has laid out the rules in exhaustive detail. We're dealing with a very brief document that gives only broad and intentionally vague guidelines. The only "law" that exists is in the Court's precedents. Bork is an activist because he has no respect for those precedents. Like the elitist liberals he has such distaste for, he thinks he "knows better." He would toss out entire volumes of precedent because, as you say, he thinks the Court "poorly interpreted" the Constitution. Not exactly a restraintist, eh?

        • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/23/2009 2:38:19 AM

          Yes, the Constitution is brief, broad, and vague. But I do not think it is a collection of "intentionally vague guidelines" that one can interpret however they wish. The Constitution, while vague, is fairly clear written that can be understood by anyone with common sense. Provided one has a good understanding of the Founding Fathers' view of the Constitution and over 200 years of legal precedent, over 90% of the time it should be unambiguous on how to interpret the Constitution. As for the cases where it is unclear how the Constitution applies, the justices are still expected to rule impartially and based on the law, not based on their personal and/or political views of issues. Of course justices will adopt a particular view of the Constitution, which is indeed a political matter. But there is a big difference from holding a particular view of the Constitution and ruling based on one's personal views on political issues. For example, Bork criticizing Roe v Wade as a poor interpretation of the Constitution is very difference from someone else criticizing Roe v Wade because that person is pro-life. Justices should only role from the law and legal theory.

          "Bork is an activist because he has no respect for those precedents... He would toss out entire volumes of precedent because, as you say, he thinks the Court "poorly interpreted" the Constitution."
          Please support your claim that Bork has no respect for precedent. Bork may be critical of some legal precedent such as Roe v Wade, which is fine since one should be critical of our government. Bork may even overturn some precedents like Roe v Wade, but the Court can and has overturned previous decisions ("separate but equal" being overturned comes to mind), so this is okay too. Though I have not read or heard anything to suggest that Bork has no respect for legal precedent and intended to toss out entire volumes of precedent.

          • Posted By: unsubscribe_me @ 06/23/2009 11:46:05 AM

            You are indeed right that the Court must occasionally overrule precedent. Had Bork been confirmed, however, he would have been the crucial fifth activist conservative vote. That's when you would have seen entire volumes of precedent from post-Civil War to the Warren Court overruled because they did not comport with the political views of those conservatives. That's precisely what the Reagan Administration wanted, and they came within inches of getting it with Bork. One has only to look at Bork's aggressive comments in this interview and the voting histories of other conservative activists like Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist to see that volumes of precedent would have been rolled back. Scalia himself has said that Thomas would like to "fix" what he considers wrongly decided cases. The Supreme Court is a supremely political institution making supremely political decisions, and Bork was the Holy Grail for Reagan and other post-60s Republicans because he would have undone all of those Roe-like decisions they lost so much sleep over.

            • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/23/2009 2:12:07 PM

              Well, I suppose you offer no support that Bork has no respect for judicial precedent. Yes, it is quite possible that Bork would have overturned a number of precedents and Conservatives would have loved him for it. But I think your claim that Bork would overturn "entire volumes of precedent" is greatly exaggerated.

              I don't think you truly understand what the Conservatives want. Yes, some want Roe v Wade and other precedents overturned merely because they are pro-life. Supporting judicial rulings simply because it supports your political views on an issue is always wrong. But some Conservatives are greatly concerned that the supreme courts are legislating from the bench. They want the right to help shape their society without unelected officials taking over this role. They understandably want precedents like Roe v Wade overturned to undo the Court's actions of overstepping. I'm pro-choice and I'd have to agree with the Conservatives, including Bork, that Roe v Wade was a horrendous decision and it wouldn't be all that bad if it were overturned.

              Maybe you should stop exhibiting your obvious dislike of Bork and Conservatives with exaggerated, unjustified claims. Try understanding the Conservatives point of view of the court before you continue to condemn it.

              • Posted By: unsubscribe_me @ 06/23/2009 3:31:48 PM

                Conservatives lie awake nights worrying about courts "legislating" not because of high-minded concepts like separation of powers, unelected officials, blah, blah, blah. That's mere pretext. They care so much about courts legislating because they know that courts are the only ones who can prevent the "tyranny of the majority" the founding fathers were so concerned about. Courts are the only ones who can protect minority rights in a majoritarian democracy like ours. That result offends conservatives because they don't like the result (i.e., minority rights protected and the majority thwarted, as the founding fathers desired). Of course, they'll never admit that, because it's so unseemly. But that's the reality, and you're kidding yourself if you think it isn't. Bork and his ilk are political conservatives masquerading as judicial conservatives. They're walking constitutional amendments in judicial robes.

                • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/23/2009 7:54:41 PM

                  Again, you have no understanding of the Conservative position and yet you have no problem judging it. Conservatives are not staying up at night hatching plans to get away with their "tyranny of the majority". I doubt many of them ever stay up late worrying about the Supreme Court. Those who do are probably wondering why laws they support and their legislature is being overturned by a Court overstepping its role. And they probably have specific complaints about how the Court overstepped. But, this isn't worth explaining to you, as you thoroughly convinced that the Conservatives are up to no good and have no interest in learning their point of view. So I won't waste anymore time explaining their point of view to you.

                  This concept that "the Courts are the only ones who can protect minority rights in a majoritarian democracy like ours" is problematic. Indeed, we are a government of majority rules, minority rights. If the majority rules in a way that infringes upon the rights specified by law, the courts play a necessary rule in upholding the minority's rights. But just because a majority acts against a "right" of a minority does not mean that the Court necessarily defends the minority. The Court only defends the rights of the minority established as law and should not be establishing new rights not currently into law. Moreover, there is another way of upholding minority rights: the majority recognize that though they may not like the minority that they shouldn't infringe upon their rights and the majority thereby legislates the minority's rights. I know this approach might might be slow, but it is the proper means of legislating rights, not through the courts.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 06/23/2009 3:19:59 PM

    Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/23/2009 12:06:44 PM
    Actually, I'm TOTALLY cool with keeping angry people off the court.

    Well, you won't want Sotomayor then who has been described by former clerks and employees as a ''bully'', and a ''yeller''. who ran her offices like a martinet. Indeed,compared with Sonia, Souter and Alito barely have a pulse.

    www.volokh.com The VOLOKH Conspriacy [Law Blog], which is running a series of critiques of Sotomayor in opposition or defense.

    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/23/2009 6:31:37 PM

      If that's true, then I indeed would have issues with her confirmation.

  • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/23/2009 4:31:32 PM

    I noticed some parallels between Bork and Sotomayor. Here, I have heard people complaining that Bork is a racist, allowed female sterilization, wants to overturn "volumes of judicial precedent", and other criticisms of Bork. I have seen Bork's quotes, including ones from the Stuart Taylor's interview, taken out of context and misinterpreted. Elsewhere, I have heard Sotomayor called a racist and her quotes taken out of context. I have also seen Obama's desire for a justice with "empathy" misrepresented by incorrectly describing what Obama means by empathy. People, try learning what these people have ACTUALLY said done and thought rather than inferring, out of context what you would like to THINK that they have said or done.

    Try educating yourself on Bork's and Sotomayor's court decisions and views and judge them based on whether they appropriately interpret the law, not on whether you like or dislike the outcome. Try finding the full context of their quotes and interpret the quotes as intended. And most of all, try simply educating yourself beyond what you saw in TV ads with Gregory Peck voice-overs and what you heard on the Rush Limbaugh show. Try becoming truly educated before you pass judgment on these individuals.

  • Posted By: Debunked! @ 06/23/2009 11:20:24 AM

    I think it would be a bad mistake for Sotomayor not to STRONGLY consider the following-------if confirmed, she could still possibly face major issues down the road, if it is proven that whether by voter fraud or by the birth certificate issue that Obama was not constiutionally eligible to be president therefore her appointment could possibly be null and void.

    I DO NOT believe for one minute that the Republicans are in disarray. This is what the liberal media want you to believe and the GOP are playing right along. I dont think the liberal media are realizing that in essence, with the negative coverage of instability and disarray that they are only helping the GOP. Hell, members of the GOP are probably the ones fueling the constant stories of dysfunction--------DONT BELIEVE IT! The fact that the Newt Gingrich function earned over 14 million in donation----tells alot! Granted, Obama's opposition was blind sided during the election and was scared to go after him for fear of being called a racist but that is out the window. Everything is simply a matter of time. I think there will be a crucial shake up in the House and Senate during the 2010 elections..........and I think his potent opposition is going to begin coming on strong around the beginning of next year.

    There is also no coincidence that many Republicans are calling for Obama to speak on behalf of those who are PROTESTING in IRAN------------there is a hidden message behind it. Maybe McCain isn't as fool hardy as I thought he was. Maybe he's been playing the game all along.

    People, everything is simply a matter of time------believe that!

    Sotomayor really need to think long and hard if she wants to accept the nomination under Obama. Personally, I think if she does, she is going to be a part of the eventual upcoming domino effect. I sincerely hope no one believes that the GOP in the Senate aren't making a big fuss over her nomination because they feel they are outnumbered........then you will be in for an awakening!

    If it wasn't for the fact that this game called politics is affecting all of our lives, I would really be enjoying what's going on. I swear, this is like a soap opera and thus far the stories that are being shown are just indicators to the big dramatic showdown that is going to occur in due time........!

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/23/2009 2:41:54 PM

      Debunked!, I don't like Obama-flavored Cool Aid either. I'm an Independent and voted for Barr because I knew McCain and Obama would be disappointing. But I think you are off on a few points.

      The voter fraud and birth certificate things are farces and Republicans need to just drop them.

      The Republicans are in disarray. They have no real leadership. Their message is out of date and is severely lacking in good, new ideas. They can't even communicate that message anyway. They didn't govern according to their professed principles under Bush and a number of now former Republicans picked up on it and left the party. The Republicans has alienated much of the electorate outside of their shrinking base. The Democrats may screw up, but do we really want to replace them with the Republicans who have screwed up too? I think the Republicans need to lose badly in 2010 before they can hope to regain power.

      • Posted By: Debunked! @ 06/23/2009 3:31:41 PM

        With all due respect, I think you are off on a few points and I will explain..........

        The voter fraud was right in our faces but those of us who opposed it whined and did nothing about it. The primary was stolen from Hillary and up until November 4th, there were SEVERAL stories AND evidence of ACORN voter fraud in battle ground states but all of this was swept under the rug. Plus there were several questionable donations that the Obama campaign received under crazy names such as Mr. Goodyear and Mr. Doodad that was swept under the rug. The 2008 election was smothered in deception and fraud but the MSM refused to cover it! You are wrong on this point.

        In regards to the birth certificate------my question is this---if this is a farce, why won't Obama simply show his original birth certificate to finally put an end to this story. Obama, the man of transparency, refused to allow his college records to be made public and refuses to provide his original birth certificate----NOT A QUESTIONABLE COPY Of a Certificate of Live Birth but his original birth certificate. This is SUCH an easy thing for Obama to prove. The question is why hasn't he. If it is a farce or crazy talk, then why not produce the goods to make everyone else look stupid and shut the story up once and for all?

        Now, I will say this---------I would LOVE to have a VIABLE third party but I doubt this happens so my options are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. During the campaign, I will say that Obama and the Dems were so right with their criticism of the GOP but what do they go and do--------they follow the GOP's lead but do it at a more reckless pace. Plus I lost all respect for Nancy Pelosi and I believe her less than I do Obama. My choices are Dems or GOP, it's like voting for the lesser of the two evils unless a viable third party comes into play or significant changes are made within the Dem party, I already know where my vote is going--------and quite frankly, that is nothing to brag about but it is what it is.!

        • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/23/2009 4:09:49 PM

          Well, Obama did show a copy of his birth certificate, which satisfies me and most people. The Obama birth certificate issue is a mere controversy that interests a minority of Americans and has yet to become anything substantial like a court case. Meanwhile, Obama does have to deal with the economy, Iraq, Iran, and other issues, so I think Obama is a bit too busy to dig up his original birth certificate. In any case, Obama is the President and until a court says otherwise this is a silly issue.

          If there are legitimate concerns of voter fraud, they should be brought before an appropriate court or judicial committee. That said though, Republicans have been worrying too much on the voter fraud and birth certificate and perhaps should focus more on issues like the economy, the debt, Iran, etc. I'd rather the Republicans focus less on slinging mud at Obama and more on rebuilding their party and coming up with good policies. Note that if you disagree with me, we are just going to have to agree to this.

          I would love a VIABLE third party too and recognize it isn't going to happen. But both parties are Darth Vader evil. Outside the obvious that someone must run the country, I fail to see why I should continue to hold my nose and pretend otherwise like everyone else does. Moreover, if I did have to hold my noes right now, I'd chose the Democrats and I mean this as someone who leans right. I will vote for the Republicans after and only after they get their act together.

          • Posted By: Debunked! @ 06/23/2009 4:16:16 PM

            Of course I disagree with your assertions---------mind you, you are the one who responded to my post because you disagreed with me NOT the other way around!! But it's all good. I like to have a good honest debate.

            We have TOTALLY different points of view and we expressed them in a respectful way. That's what America and diplomacy is all about so lets agree to disagree!

    • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/23/2009 3:19:55 PM

      "I think it would be a bad mistake for Sotomayor not to STRONGLY consider the following-------if confirmed, she could still possibly face major issues down the road, if it is proven that whether by voter fraud or by the birth certificate issue that Obama was not constiutionally eligible to be president therefore her appointment could possibly be null and void."

      Is need more tinfoil in you hat.

      • Posted By: Debunked! @ 06/23/2009 3:37:03 PM

        WHAT EVER---------why is it that some people choose to send a immature or childish response instead of posting a decent opposing opinion explaining their position?

        If I want to have a childish conversation I will have it with my kids!

    • Posted By: basedrum777 @ 06/23/2009 1:31:45 PM

      You're really a crazy right-wing consipiracy theorist. Move on...

      • Posted By: Debunked! @ 06/23/2009 2:20:15 PM

        Such a typical response----------BIG OL YAWN

    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/23/2009 12:05:14 PM

      http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31326

      (The article is entitled "Correct Theory Discarded In Favor Of More Interesting Theory".)

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse