I wasn’t aware I had a cause. What, pray tell, is it?
That’s not the “spin”. I have no doubt that the Dems were against him because of his judicial philosophy. But they would have had a harder time justifying that if Bork hadn’t been such a scary, unlikeable fellow. His face alone could easily be used to scare little children into behaving. And they went after him for far more than his judicial philsosophy-- hence the etymology of the verb “to bork”, ie, to destroy a judicial nominee through a concerted attack on his character, background and philosophy. (My emphasis added).
They tried to bork Thomas, but were unsuccessful. I’m not sure Thomas’ judicial philosophy is significantly different from Bork’s. Do you think it is?
Yes, Bork was the beginning of the need for justices without a paper trail, at least as far as Democratic votes go. But I have no doubt that if a Ruth Bader Ginsburg were nomintated by a Democratic President today, the Republicans wouldn’t stand for it. They try to bork her.
I disagree. In the past few years, the Right has cried “borking” in response to any strong criticism of practically any kind of a Presidential nominee.
I would contend that as a result, the term means nothing like what it did 18 years ago.
And, except for the “philosophy” part, what you emphasize is the spin you say you have not bought - unless, that is, you can provide some support for your assertion that it was about character and background as well.
RTF is right - to the GOP, and apparently to at least one self-described libertarian, “borking” means simply to oppose a nominee, nothing more. Part of the spin is to remove the actual meaning of the word from common use via strawmen about the term’s origin. Bork’s Whining Tour speeches and books have contributed mightily to that bit of Newspeak.
Then why did you use it, and what did you mean by it back in post #292? Why did you find it ironic that Bork was “borking” Meirs if “borking” doesn’t mean what it used to mean when Bork was “borked”? (Try saying that 5 times real fast. 
)
Ummm… did you actually read RTF’s post and the exchange that took place afterwards? He was the one who claimed that simply opposing a nominee amounted to “borking” her, and I was the one who claimed it didn’t. If what you say is true, you should be agreeing with me and disagreeing with him.
See, that’s the problem people have with you. You seem to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing, choosing sides based on the poster, not on the content of the post.
How about giving this another go and see whom you actually agree with.
No, friend, I’m talking about what *you * have said. *Your * definition of “borking”. Your *own * statements of “fact” about the Democrats’ motivations for opposing Bork. If you can’t, or won’t, defend your own statements anymore, that’s fine. Just say so, okay? Sheesh.
Now I’m going to ask you to retract your misrepresentation of my post. How do you get (in your post #324, my epmphasis):
when my post #298 clearly states that it’s more than simply “opposing” a candidate:
Are you now going to claim that the “one self-described libertarian” wasn’t a reference to me?
Sure, that meant you, but you’re not getting why. The definition of “borking” you’re using, one straight from the GOP Stylebook, describes something that didn’t actually happen. Have you overlooked the challenge to back up your flat statement that it was character assassination, as your claimed definition would have it? No? Then would you care to reconsider?
No, as the current GOP/Mace definition is in practice, it is indeed used as code for “simply opposing a nominee”, as I said. The connotations that the motivations for it are tawdry and partisan rather than statesmanlike are part of the GOP usage. The *facts * in examples that the term is applied to, however, include *all * oppositions for *whatever * reason, allowing any opposition to be tainted as tawdry and partisan while dismissing any possibility of their arising from concern for country. I’m surprised that an explanation is necessary.
Now let’s see you back up your assertions about the Democrats’ reasons for opposing Bork.
Now, Elvish, ease up on John-Boy a bit, he means well, and besides, his Bork is worse than his…no, I can’t. I just can’t.
But seriously, folks…
What are we to make of these revelations by the Times?
However much you may admire GeeDubya, Shirley you can see that this is quite, quite over the top. Especially if, as I, you don’t much admire GeeDubya at all, in which case you see this as totally batshit.
So what insight can we gain from this? Is the pig in the poke wearing lipstick, or no? Does Ms. Meiers truly hold GeeDubya in such awe, that he is a collossus that bestrides the world? Or is she a world class suck-up, who spends more time on her knees that a penitent nun?
Once again, I will ask you to re-read my post #298, wherein I establish that I was using the definion given by the New York Times. So now you have 2 things to retract.
That is entirely besides the point. We’re talking about Bork’s opposition to Miers. If you want to sidetrack this into a discussion of Bork, start another thread. I won’t continue that hijack here. At this point, I’m simply trying to set the record straight in light of the mischaracterizations you’ve made of my posts.
At the risk of distracting due attention to the endlessly fascinating “John N’ Elvis Show”… The following tidbit by way of Think Progress
http://thinkprogress.org/, titled “Bush Circular Logic on Meiers”
Hey, he’s your guy-- you talk some sense into him.
Looks like a mutual admiration society-- she claims he’s the smartest person she knows, and he claims she’s one of the top 50 female lawyers (due to his having picked her).
I suspect that she’ll be confirmed. I’m not thrilled with the choice, but I haven’t found a legitimate (ie, nonpolitical) reason to oppose her. Let’s see how the hearings play out…
:dubious: Why do you assume political reasons would not be legitimate ones in this context?
Do I? It should be easy to find the original NYT citation, then, so that the verity and context can be established. Yet somehow it fails to turn up when Googling, although there are other sources who say it was from them. A bit suspicious, wouldn’t you say? Might it be that the NYT cite, even if it exists, in context actually describes how the GOP Stylebook defines the term, as I’ve said? Would it be the first misrepresentation you ever got caught up by?
So you can’t support your statements about “borking”, made in a number of posts that you’ve now declared besides the point. Would it really be that painful to say so? :rolleyes:
If you’re looking for a reason to oppose her, btw, there’s precedent for using mediocrity alone as a sufficient one. That’s been pointed out previously.
That’s my own particular philosophy concerning SC appointees, based on my reading of the constitution. I realize most other people don’t apply that same standard.
The Constituion is a wondrous document, much like Holy Scripture. Mr. Bork gazes upon it, and discovers to his happy assurance that it reflects his political philosophy with luminous clarity! As, apparently, do you. How marvelous that our forefathers prediscovered libertarian political thought before it was even aborning!
We progressives remain darkly suspicious. We suspect that Mr. Bork has carried his philosophy to the meeting of minds, like the committee of blind men examining an elephant, he feels the trunk and declares it a snake. Hence, he is justified, in his own mind, with declaring that he knows the “original” intent of the Framers and browbeating those who stray from that “original” intent.
May I offer my own deeply scholarly analysis? Thank you, I shall.
The Constitution was framed by brilliant men who didn’t trust one other any further than they could throw each other. This is the fundamental source of the “checks and balances” we so rightly admire. The fortunate result of all this (or unfortunate, depending) is a multitude of perfectly plausible interpretations of “original intent”. (One can only hope that Mr. Bork has no intention of justifying the “3/5 of a person” rule…)
Hence, the use of the concept “originalist” is nothing more than an attempt to drape the legitimacy and honor of the Founding Fuckups around one’s own personal agenda. It is nonsense if I were to do it, and its nonsense when anyone else does it.
The Devil quotes Scripture, when it suits his purpose.
Yea, verily. Add to that the simple fact that the Supreme Court is a political body, just like the other 2 branches. Making law (not simply interpreting it, that’s what lower courts do, and cases that simple don’t make it that far up the ladder) is what they do. They’re guided but not bound by precedent and case law. They decide cases in very large part based on their own experiences and philosophies of life, their own feelings about fairness and rights, and that requires a representative range of those things. They talk them over and learn from each other. At least it’s supposed to work that way. That’s another part of the checks ‘n’ balances system that we simply require. But there’s still only 9 seats available, and the mainstream requires the bulk of them. There need not be a quota for ideologues and other cranks and there shouldn’t be one.
To insist, as Bork and Scalia do, that their own particular views, however out of the mainstream, are the only correct ones and that any others should be dismissed makes them unqualified for the job. However brilliant they may be technically, those attitudes belong in lower courts at most, where they won’t do real harm to real people. It’s okay for Judge Bork to insist there is no Constitutionally-protected right to privacy, as he did in his hearings, if it never comes into play in his cases, but it was entirely appropriate to act in the nation’s interest and keep that view off the Court. Yet the “borkers” were engaging in “character assassination”, say his fellow ideologues, unable to comprehend that others may disagree and be at least as right.
Strawman. Or, rather, strawmen. No one claims that originalists always come to the same conclusion, and no one would consider the 3/5 rule to be part of the constitution, since slavery is explicitly banned by an amendment (can’t remember which one now). That was a rather weak attempt at scaremongering on your part, luc…
Except that I, among others on this board, ascribe to a similar philosophy* often argue the constiutionality of things contrary to our own political agendas. As you know, I am an atheist who leans libertarian. I favor a complete seperation of church and state as well as SSM. But I wouldn’t argue that the constittion requires either one of those things.
If you want to comnpletly politicize the SC nomination process, be my guest. Your political side will lose that contest 9 times out of 10.
*I don’t claim to understand Bork’s philososophy, nor do I claim to see things his way. But it’s close enough for government work, or this debate.