# Bork weighs in on Miers nomination - Very interesting discussion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 8, 2005, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bork-weighs-in-on-miers-nomination-very-interesting-discussion/325329 "2005-10-08T18:13:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bork-weighs-in-on-miers-nomination-very-interesting-discussion/325329/1 "2005-10-08T18:13:43Z")
[Bork calls Miers nomination a ‘disaster’ - Former Supreme Court nominee gives take on newest pick for the bench](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9623345/) > [@](#): > > 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. > > But the other level is more worrisome, in a way: it’s kind of a slap in the face to the conservatives who’ve been building up a conservative legal movement for the last 20 years. There’s all kinds of people, now, on the federal bench and some in the law schools who have worked out consistent philosophies of sticking with the original principles of the Constitution. And all of those people have been overlooked. And I think one of the messages here is, don’t write, don’t say anything controversial before you’re nominated. > [@](#): > > CARLSON: Right. I don’t think it should either. > > Now what do you think her chances of being confirmed are? > > BORK: I think they’re probably pretty high because — and this should give the president some pause — they’re pretty high because the Democrats seem to like her. > > CARLSON: Yeah. > > BORK: I think that ought to give him reason to think that maybe he made a mistake. > > CARLSON: What about conservatives in Washington. I no longer live there, so I don’t have quite my finger on the pulse of it. But what’s your sense of how Bush’s supporters feel about Harriet Miers? > > BORK: Well, those who are involved in the process have some reason to stick with the White House — not because they believe what the White House has done is wise, but they can’t jump overboard with this decision. But everybody else I’ve talked to ranges between disapproval and outrage. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2005, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bork-weighs-in-on-miers-nomination-very-interesting-discussion/325329/2 "2005-10-08T18:18:25Z")
Is this debate any different from what’s going on over [here?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=338285) Seems like its just one other conservative saying the exact same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bork-weighs-in-on-miers-nomination-very-interesting-discussion/325329/3 "2005-10-09T04:57:16Z")
A while back, when we had the Gang of 14 and the nuclear option talk going on, weren’t most conservatives denying that judicial nominees had an ideological agenda? As I recall it was claimed that every nominee was completely impartial. So why are we suddenly hearing so many complaints from conservatives that Miers isn’t conservative enough? Are these people now admitting that every previous nominee was a conservative nominee and they were lying when they claimed ideology wasn’t an issue? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bork-weighs-in-on-miers-nomination-very-interesting-discussion/325329/4 "2005-10-09T05:49:06Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > A while back, when we had the Gang of 14 and the nuclear option talk going on, weren’t most conservatives denying that judicial nominees had an ideological agenda? As I recall it was claimed that every nominee was completely impartial. > > So why are we suddenly hearing so many complaints from conservatives that Miers isn’t conservative enough? Are these people now admitting that every previous nominee was a conservative nominee and they were lying when they claimed ideology wasn’t an issue? Can you give us some cites of the claims you are talking about? I think you may have misunderstood. If there were any claims about ideology, it was about not having a political agenda. An ideology can, I suppose, be called an agenda, but it’s more about how one deals with issues of constitutional interpretation. The so called “conservative” interpretation can come up with some surprisingly “liberal” rulings (eg, defense of flag buring as protected speech) since the constitution itself is largely about securing freedom for the citizenry. At any rate why don’t you give us some specific quotes from specific people, and lets deal with them one at a time. I honestly don’t know what you’re referring to. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bork-weighs-in-on-miers-nomination-very-interesting-discussion/325329/5 "2005-10-09T20:55:48Z")
Well, this is very good news in my book. My philosophy is that if there is a political / legal question with any amount of controversy and I don’t have time to find out the details, I could do no better than to look at what Bork’s opinion is and take the opposing opinion. Really, Bork is a total conservative nutcase! Have you read “Slouching toward Gomorrah”? I looked at it once in the bookstore and wondered how anyone ever managed to present Bork as a serious intellectual of the right. If Bork is such, then there must be some very serious “affirmative action” going on (in the worst sense of that word) to fight underrepresentation of conservatives in the intelligencia. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bork-weighs-in-on-miers-nomination-very-interesting-discussion/325329/6 "2005-10-09T21:05:38Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Really, Bork is a total conservative nutcase! Have you read “Slouching toward Gomorrah”? I looked at it once in the bookstore and wondered how anyone ever managed to present Bork as a serious intellectual of the right. If Bork is such, then there must be some very serious “affirmative action” going on (in the worst sense of that word) to fight underrepresentation of conservatives in the intelligencia. I stopped paying any attention to Bork or those who claim he was shafted after I watched him on _The News Hour_ one night. The subject of the two man panel was a Supreme Court case that had just been decided. Bork was the anti voice and an attorney who had argued the case for the winners was the pro voice. On every point that Bork brought up as evidence that the decision was wrong, his opponent pointed out that the very point had been addressed and found wanting during the hearing before the Court. Bork obviously had not prepared for the discussion. I couldn’t imagine a supposed intellectual even showing up on short notice, knowing that his opposite in the discussion had actually just finished presenting the case to the Supreme Court. I decided right then and there that if I ever needed someone to charge uphill across 200 yards of open ground to assault a machine gun, Robert Bork would be my choice. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2005, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bork-weighs-in-on-miers-nomination-very-interesting-discussion/325329/7 "2005-10-09T21:34:46Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Is this debate any different from what’s going on over [here?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=338285) That thread was about an intelligent, literate, controlled, middle-of-the-road conservative reacting negatively to the Miers nomination. This thread is about a lunatic, nutcase, beyond-all-hope-of-sanity conservative reacint negatively to the Miers nomination. Together they show, I suppose, that conservative unhappiness about Miers is decently widespread. However, with Zogby putting Republican support for Miers at 74%, it’s not very deep. Thus Miers is likely to be confirmed be confirmed, and the opinions of George Will and Robert Bork will matter little in the end.