Quantcast

Comments about ‘In our opinion: Defining Robert Bork: Pop culture tends to judge a person by fleeting encounters with the national spotlight’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Dec. 21 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

Bork was the guy who said there was no such thing as a right to privacy.

He also said it was OK for the government to restrict _married_ couples' access to birth control.

He said it was OK for a company to require its female employees to agree to be sterilized if they wanted to keep their jobs.

When Richard Nixon tried to fire the Watergate Special Prosecutor, the Attorney General resigned rather than carry out that unconstitutional abuse of power, and so did the Assistant Attorney General. But Bork was #3 in line and he fired Archibald Cox in the middle of the invistigation into Nixon's well-documented, egregious and dangerous criminal behavior.

The fact that he is revered as an icon of conservatism mystifies me.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

DN is right to say that some people are judged unfairly based on one or two incidents which may not be characteristic of their entire lives.

But I'm not sure that Bork is one of those. When his nomination to the Supreme Court failed (opposed by senators of both parties), Bork simply took his beliefs public and spent the remainder of his life as a well-paid conservative activist. That's legal, but it ended up revealing what Bork's views REALLY were, instead of what he tried to convince the Senate of in 1987.

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

[Robert Bork had two such encounters — one when he carried out President Richard Nixon's order to fire the special prosecutor in the Watergate case]

He was just following orders, right? That excuse didn't work at the Nuremberg trials, either. It showed the kind of person he was: middle-management and complacent.

[Bork said his nomination ordeal would lead to a time when future nominees would have to be people who had published little and had no opinions.]

Or people without such reprehensible opinions.

[Bork's real contributions, however, far outweigh those crude political attacks.]

He had few significant contributions, because he was luckily kept out of the Supreme Court.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

Amen to Blue and Mark B. This editorial suggest that Bork was refused nomination because of "fleeting" issues. They were hardly fleeting DN and why did you omit the well known issue of his decision permitting termination unless female empoyees would agree to become sterilizied? Ank, okay why did that corporation not require males to be sterilized? No, Bork had a fair hearing and was appropriatly rejected. But he should have applied for a position on the Editorial Staff of the DN. He surely would have been appreciated in that position.

ECR
Burke, VA

In a Meridian Magazine article in 2009 speaking of the "Culture Wars" Bork said,

"It will be important to make cultural alliances across religious lines. Orthodox Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, and Jews have more in common on cultural matters than they do with liberal members of their own faiths."

His first assumption, that one cannot be politically liberal and be orthodox in their reilgious faith, is short sighted and offensive. His overall premise of driving a wedge between members of the same religion, for nothing more than his political agenda is even quite threatening.

Shame on Judge Bork for stating it and on Meridian Magazine for giving him the vehicle to make such a bigoted statement.

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

Mike in Cedar City:
[No, Bork had a fair hearing and was appropriatly rejected. But he should have applied for a position on the Editorial Staff of the DN. He surely would have been appreciated in that position.]

High Five!

the truth
Holladay, UT

@Mukkake

Bork was never rejected,

He nomination never got out of comittee, forcing Reagan to withdraw him.

The democrat controlled senate never did their constitutional duediligence and allow a vote.

Although, if Bork has fought for it, he could forced a vote, and probably won because the no legitimate reason to not vote for him.

He was certainly no worse, and no more radical, than the Obama nominations.

It was result of Democrat shenanigans on this nomination that we have gotten the bad judges we have now, with little track record, and who say almost nothing about how they judge during nomination, and have no interest in actually following the constitution.

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

the truth:
[He nomination never got out of comittee, forcing Reagan to withdraw him. The democrat controlled senate never did their constitutional duediligence and allow a vote. Although, if Bork has fought for it, he could forced a vote, and probably won because the no legitimate reason to not vote for him]

Wrong, he lost the committee, waited for the full vote, and was rejected there, too. So obviously there were plenty of reasons not to vote for him.

Howard Beal
Provo, UT

Bork is a constitutional scholar certainly but some of his "interpretations" were scary and there is no way to sugar coat that.

UTAH Bill
Salt Lake City, UT

Lest we forget, the intentions of the Founding Fathers were not as benign and righteous as orginalist supporters would have us believe. Constitutional originalism was used to conclude women and minorities should not have the rights they do now. It's amazing how the author simply fails to mention those issues regarding Bork. He was a rigid dinosaur who was rightly rejected for a seat on SCOTUS.

Wayne Rout
El Paso, TX

Probably the best and most qualified person to be nominated in the last century. Compare this man to the people nominated by Obama. We will look back one day and shall see that the Democrats began the downfall of this nation with their lies and strategy on Judge Bork. No longer was it possible to work together. We can no longer put the country first. The voter ID issue is a prime example. All logical people understand that we must stamp out voter fraud or face the prospect that our elections will have no credibility. Democrats will not support anything that might stop voter fraud. Honesty is gone...who can we really believe?

durwood kirby
South Jordan, UT

Wayne, it would seem that you are suffering a bout of amnesia regarding the eight years that George W. held the reins.

the truth
Holladay, UT

@Mukkake

It doesn't matter what the resulting vote in committee is. It is just a recommendation of the committee.

The constitutional requirement is the for the senate to give an up or down vote on nominations.

It is sad how the democrats have destroyed the nomination process. Now we can never have good nomination again.

And all because the democrats refusal to give Bork a nomination vote.

We now have live with horrible radical unqualified nominations of Obama. Though, I blame the republicans more for not fighting harder against them. On the other had they atleast followed the constitution ans allowed the nominations a vote

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

To the truth 6:35 p.m. Dec. 22, 2012

Your allegation that "the democrats refusal to give Bork a nomination vote" is not the truth. Bork had an up-down vote in the Senate. He lost, the vote being 58-42 with the help of a half-dozen Republicans who joined all but two Democrats in voting against him.

Bork was a radical far right extremist ideologue (see the comments describing his positions above for full particulars). The country was well-served by the vote denying him a seat on the US Supreme Court.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

Now all you Democrats need to stifle yourselves. You had the perfect opportunity and blew it. Had Bork been voted on the Supreme Court, Obama would now be nominating a replacement justice thereby changing the balance of the court and the conservatives would be in the minority full time.

In this case, I'm glad Ted Kennedy screwed up that bad. He wasn't the brightest bulb in the building and his demagogery of one of the most qualified people to come along, was just plain not right. Bork was characterized as a right wing extreamest. Based on his being right wing, the Republicans should have stuffed Sotomayer, Kagen, and Ginsburg. All left wing idealoges. Especially Kagen who shouldn't even be on the Supreme Court.

So way to go Democrats, blame yourselves. Oh and Durwood, quite blaming Bush. He hasn't been president for four years. Time to get off of that bandwagon.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments