In what specific way do you contend he was unqualified? What does “did the whole Watergate thing?” mean, specifically?
Bork indeed fired Archibald Cox. But this was not a quid-pro-quo: Nixon supposedly promised Bork a Supreme Court spot after the fact, not as an inducement to do it.
And in any event, there is no suggestion that Reagan had anything to do with that conversation.
So is your complaint that, while Acting Attorney General, Robert Bork followed the orders of the President by firing Archibald Cox?
The firing was deemed illegal. That’s disqualifying for a SC justice as far as I’m concerned. Two people resigned rather than follow Nixon’s order, but let’s give Bork a break because hey he was just following orders.
Me too. Because Scalia is exactly the right model for a Supreme Court Justice: guided by the text of the Constitution and the text of federal law, and not seeing the Supreme Court as having a role to create social change. The law, in his view, is created by the legislature, and the role of the courts was to apply the law as it exists to the facts before the court.
Roy Moore is the kind of judge that believes judges should use the law to create social change towards the right. He subordinates legal principles to desired results.
Of course, this is the mirror image of what judges like Sonia Sotomayor do: use the law to create change towards the left’s idea of social progress.
No. No way. Not now, not ever. Garland was an Obama selection and a lot of people are unhappy with Obama’s previous choices. Move along Garland. Nothing to see here. Nothing for you. Buh bye.
President Trump has plenty of other persons to chose from. Especially among those who believe that the 2nd is an unalienable right of an individual.
Ralph Nader sued the Justice Department. He won a ruling that the firing was illegal and the Justice Department did not appeal. Bork himself was not a party to the suit, and did not have a chance to defend himself.
This, by you, is sufficient to disqualify him? A unappealed non-precedent-setting finding by a trial court, against a guy who was not even permitted to defend his action? Really?
Does it bother you that the same judge was also the trial judge for the Watergate burglars? Even a bit?
Yup, really. Was the candidate pool so shallow that they had no choice but to choose someone central to trying to shut down investigation into one of the greatest scandals in modern American history?
I agree there is a difference; I don’t agree it’s a significant one. That is, the Republicans were always going to vote him down, irrespective of his qualifications.
Can you explain what you feel the specific aspects of failing to hold hearings were to the question of whether he was confirmed or not?
Why don’t you explain why helping out in the Watergate coverup is AOK for a Supreme Court Justice? Or explain your dark hints on the judge who ruled the firing illegal?
No, but that’s not the question. It’s obvious you disagree with Bork’s decision, but it’s not obvious that this makes him unqualified. When you ask, “Was the candidate pool so shallow…” you are arguing there were better candidates, not that Bork was unqualified.
But the point I am making is: the Senate should not be imposing its view of “better candidates.” That’s what happened with Bork, and then the Republicans returned the favor, and the the Democrats retaliated, and then the Republicans re-retaliated.
You cannot expect that the rule will be, “Your President can be second-guessed by our Senate, because he’s not entitled to deference; OUR President is entitled to deference in his picks by your Senate.”
If you believe that Bork’s choices make him a poor choice, and the Senate is entitled to reject him on that basis, how do you claim that the Senate is not similarly entitled now?
At the time, Bork was the Acting Attorney General, a position he had held for a matter of hours when he wrote the letter dismissing Cox.
But he had analyzed the matter extensively before that day. As a matter of law, he concluded that the Special Prosecutor was an extension of the Attorney General’s power. (Note that the current Special Prosecutor statute did not then exist). The Attorney General’s power was in turn derived from the Executive. As a matter of legal and constitutional dimension, the Special Prosecutor derived his existence only from the President, and the President had the authority to fire him for insubordination.
That is the correct argument, in my view, and the only reason it was not aired in court is that the Justice Department had no interest in the politically suicidal defense of the firing, so they did not appeal or even fight the Nader suit, to which Bork himself was not a party.
Gesell should have recused himself; he was the judge in the Watergate Seven trial.
Hey, the Republicans can refuse any Dem nominee who was involved in a criminal cover up with my blessing. When have I indicated anything to the contrary?
Too bad there wasn’t any lawyers around at the time to suggest that.
What does “involved” mean here, and why do you get to be the one who decides?
How about we stick to the current system: Trump nominates a slate of justices which the GOP Senate confirms? With my blessings. When have I ever indicated anything to the contrary?
I just argued that the trial was not truly adversarial. Therefore, neither side was interested in Gesell recusing himself, so how does your comment make sense?
You understand that Bork could not march into court and move that Gesell recuse hinself, right?
Getting a little Clintonesque there, aren’t you? He was involved in the normal english sense. He decided that it was fine for the President to fire the guy tasked with an investigation into the President’s actions.
I’m sorry, you seem to misunderstand. I clearly said it was disqualifying in my opinion. I was not suggesting a Constitutional amendment that made it legally disqualifying. If you remember, this back and forth had to do with your suggestion that Bork being refused was the beginning of blatantly partisan blocking of court nominations. I was merely pointing out that there was a perfectly reasonable non-partisan reason to block his appointment.
Yes. Were Nader and the judge alone in the courtroom? I was only 3 at the time so my memory is fuzzy.
He decided it was legal. His own memoirs reveal that he considered resigning as well, concerned that he would be seen as the guy who did Nixon’s bidding just to save his job, but both Richardson and Ruckelshaus urged him not to – that he could do more good to the country by staying. At some point, they said, Nixon would get down to the janitor, and the janitor would fire Cox. It made more sense to not lose any more people.
Sure, but there are perfectly reasonable non-partisan reasons to block Garland, too: he’s overly deferential of agency rule-making and would strengthen the flawed approach that Chevron has calcified.
No. So what? Let’s say there were fifty visiting lawyers there, the entire Washington Press Corps, and a traveling troupe of orange jugglers from San Franciso de Macoris. How does that help your point?