fujiyama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-12-06 04:29 PM
Original message |
How was Robert Bork "Borked"? |
|
I was like 5 or 6 at the time, so I am unclear as to how Bork did not get through.
Were Dems in the majority in the senate at the timE? I mean, what's different about the Dems in the senate now? Did moderate republicans actually side with Dems?
|
medeak
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-12-06 04:30 PM
Response to Original message |
|
it was a dem congress back then
|
Deep13
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-12-06 04:30 PM
Response to Original message |
2. The Ds had a majority and Spector sided with them. |
|
There was no need for a filibuster, the Senate just voted him down.
|
JHB
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-12-06 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
13. A lot more Repubs were still concerned with real integrity... |
|
Edited on Thu Jan-12-06 04:42 PM by JHB
...the kind Bork didn't show when he discontinued a criminal investigation at the command of one of the prime suspects in that investigation -- and after two (or more?) superiors had resigned rather than carry out that command. (See "Saturday Night Massacre" as it relates to Watergate.)
They figured that a man who couldn't didn't resign on principle in that situation didn't have the integrity needed for the SC. Naturally, the conservo-nuts thought the Senate should just rubber-stamp anyone a conservative president put forward, and so remembered Bork's defeat as a pernicious attack by "liberals".
|
Nutmegger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-12-06 04:31 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Yeah, I was a kid then too |
|
So I had no idea what the hell was going on. Here is a link you may find helpful. http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id320.htm
|
joeybee12
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-12-06 04:31 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Don't recall much other than he lost the vote by a wide margin... |
|
...so some Repukes crossed over--Dems had the majority, though. The big issue was choice back then, as it should be now--don't know why Dems are so scared of being pro-choice these days.
|
Nutmegger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-12-06 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
thefloyd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-12-06 04:31 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Senate was controlled by Democrats |
|
and Republicans at the time were way more liberal....Goldwater type conservatives. Really Bork never had a chance in my opinion....
|
chelsea0011
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-12-06 04:32 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Senator Kennedy. Was the one then and is the one now. |
|
He painted him as extreme beyond American values. And Kennedy didn't let up.
|
RandomKoolzip
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-12-06 04:33 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Dems were a majority at the time, and the political climate was |
|
Edited on Thu Jan-12-06 04:34 PM by RandomKoolzip
different. I was 12 at the time, but I remember a few things: Bork was considered an extremist not just by the Dems in the Senate, but my a majority of Americans. Today, he'd be considered center-right. (Jesus, that's fucking sad.)
Also, Bork got caught lying to the committe about his views on Stare Decisis. Before the committee, he claimed that Stare Decisis was important, then Ted Kennedy palyed a tape before the panel of Bork giving a speech in front of some college, saying the exact opposite. Of course, the republicans misinterpreted this as a "witch hunt," and were more preapred (with counter-attacks) when Clarence Thomas's name came up.
|
EST
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-12-06 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
12. Remember the Clarence Thomas joke? |
|
His first s/c decision was whether "harass" (say it out loud) was one word or two!
|
EST
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-12-06 04:33 PM
Response to Original message |
9. He's an absolute crazy f**ker, wanting to waste the nation |
|
the same way the criminals are doing, now. He was't "Borked;" there were enough sane people in the senate, still, then, to say "NO."
|
Justitia
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-12-06 04:35 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Even repubs changed their mind about him after his hearings. |
|
It was quite something to watch. He shocked the moderate repubs (there used to be more of them) with his caustic comments and strident opinions.
His was probably the last "honest" set of confirmation hearings.
Bork "Borked" himself, with his own words.
These slippery mother f'ers would never get caught being so honest about their regressive positions today.
|
Warpy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-12-06 04:37 PM
Response to Original message |
11. Bork was (is) an extremist and Democrats told the truth |
|
about him, and I guess the GOP has been bitter about that for many years.
He was completely inappropriate and it's a very good thing that he wasn't confirmed. Right wingers have howled about how mean the Dems were to tell the truth about that ugly sucker ever since then.
|
long_green
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-12-06 04:41 PM
Response to Original message |
14. Teddy told the absolute truth |
|
I don't recall his words exactly but what he said at the time of Bork's nomination has turned out to be prophecy. It went along the lines of "Robert Bork's America is one where citizens will live in fear of their door being kicked in by police in warrantless invasions; one where women will be menaced by dangerous back-alley abortions; one where minority children will be shuttled into separate and unequal schools." Something like that. Preach, Teddy.
|
Nutmegger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-12-06 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
|
Edited on Thu Jan-12-06 04:46 PM by Nutmegger
"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution." - Ted Kennedy
|
long_green
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-12-06 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
izzie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-12-06 04:41 PM
Response to Original message |
15. Hard to recall for me but I do recall thinking he was sort of odd |
|
He seemed out of date to me on things.We seemed to be going for more rights and he seemed to be for less.
|
alfredo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-12-06 04:57 PM
Response to Original message |
18. He borked himself. He came across as extreme, and one statement |
|
stood out in a lot of people's mind as why he was unsuitable. When asked why he wanted to be on the court, he said for him it would be an "Intellectual feast." His reasoning centered around himself, not the nation. He came off self centered and elitist. He seemed not to understand that he was to be a public servant. He was to do a dead serious job, not engage in some type of mental masturbation.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 04:56 PM
Response to Original message |