As a mere trial court decision that was not appealed, the case sets no controlling precedent. Other cases cannot point to it and say that the result there compels the result in their own case.
More specifically, the basic idea of a trial is when two true adversaries each present their arguments – the idea is that the stronger idea, the correct view of the law and the facts, will ultimately win out. But when both sides seek the same general resolution, the case cannot be said to have been actually tried.
Here’s an example that’s ongoing at present, in real life. There’s a “reputation defender,” firm that appears to be selling its services to clients who wish material about them on the Internet removed. Now, normally, Google (to pick the most public example) will not stop indexing content merely because someone alleged that the content was defamatory. But they will remove content as the result of a trial court’s finding.
So Abe hires the firm to remove Google links to a posting from Ben that claims Abe sells bad tasting seafood. This is First Amendment protected opinion; there is no legal way to force the poster to remove that content. So the reputation defender sues a confederate, Charles, not the real poster. And then Charles files an admission: yes, I agree my posting was defamatory and I agree to settle this case. The court issues a ruling in favor of Abe, the reputation defender firm faxes a copy to Google, showing them that the court has agreed the content was defamatory, and, boom! Google removes the indexing.
But that court ruling doesn’t represent a real trial on the merits – the actual party who posted the material has never even been made aware of the lawsuit and never got a chance to defend his position and point out the First Amendment. The “trial” was not between two adversaries Abe and Ben. It was between two confederates, Abe and Charles.
I was actually asking why Bork not being able to march into court and demand recusal helped your point. The fact that the Nixon/Justice Department was too embarrassed to defend itself doesn’t seem to make Bork remotely more sympathetic. I am baffled as to why you do.
I’m sure there’s non-partisan reasons to vote against Garland. I’m sure we both agree it was too bad McConnell decided to not let his fellow Senators have a chance to express them on the floor. But you, I must again remind, are the one who brought up Bork as the beginning of partisan refusal to confirm judges. He is a bad example of partisan refusal because was absolutely tarnished.
If Bork wasn’t able to participate at all in the trial that supposedly found his actions were illegal, how can you hold it against him? The Nixon administration was in fact too embarrassed to defend itself, but that didn’t transform Bork’s action into an illegal one.
Can you explain more specifically than just using words like “tarnished,” what wrong Bork did?
He helped Nixon try to shut down the Watergate investigation. Despite the excuses you’re making for him, his firing of the Special Prosecuter was deemed illegal. A Supreme Court Justice should not be someone who was solidly complicit in a massive political scandal, no matter how legal he thought it was at the time. The fact that his bosses both resigned before he jumped in to help out was certainly enough warning that what Nixon was asking was not proper.
It seems to me that a consistent complaint offered against Trump supporters is their failure to actually engage the factual arguments that contradict their claims.
I think you’re doing the same thing here: you say, “Despite the excuses… his firing of the Special Prosecuter was deemed illegal.”
But the “excuses” were actually arguments about why that’s an unfair statement. You don’t engage or rebut the arguments at all.
I showed you why the supposed “deeming” was not a precedent setting finding, or the result of a true trial, and that Bork himself was never given a chance to argue in opposition to that finding.
You didn’t address that set of points at all – you just called it an excuse. But can you explain why it’s an excuse and in what way it fails to actually rebut the claim that the firing was illegal?
But those same bosses urged him not to resign. If their judgement is to be respected on the first point, why not that one also?
I am asking you to explain, specifically, the application of the word to these set of facts.
What? Of course it’s a fair statement. The firing was deemed illegal in a federal court. You’re just saying “but it wasn’t fair, they didn’t really try to defend it”. So what? It stands unless it’s overruled.
And it doesn’t matter that his bosses urged him to stay. “Hey, we’re both jumping in the lifeboats but you should totally stay” “umm ok”. Sounds like a solid choice for the highest court in the land!
Imagine you are at work. At the request of your boss, you take an action. It turns out to be an unpopular action. I file a suit against your employer, asserting that what you did was illegal. You are not a named party to the suit. Your employer, supremely embarrassed over the fallout, refuses to defend the suit, and allows judgment to be entered saying: “What CarnalK did at the request of the employer was illegal.”
Now, I go out and spread the word that you have been found to have committed an illegal act. You are contemplating running for assistant dog catcher in your home town, but sadly, you are deemed to be unqualified for the position, because, after all, you did something illegal, as determined by a court.
Would you not find this a bit unfair to you? :smack:
Please yourself. I don’t need to imagine any little scenarios. The facts of the actual situation are plain. Two people resigned rather than follow the order, number 3 didn’t.
There’s a vast difference between rejecting one individual nominee for acts that specific individual did and pre-emptively declaring you will refuse to consider any nominee.
Lindsey Graham would definitely like this idea, Ted Cruz is the modern version of Lincoln’s Salmon Chase problem, except Ted Cruz is an irritant to the entire nation aside from social conservative rubes.
Rejecting a nominee because a Democratic President nominated him and then confirming the same nominee when a Republican President nominated him is the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation. It’s just reminding everyone that this was all about partisan politics and had nothing to do with principles.
Keep in mind Garland wasn’t Obama’s choice. He nominated Garland because the Republicans asked him to.
“Bork is not qualified” is not the same as “Garland, or anyone else Obama nominates, will not be considered”. Garland was judged on nothing more than having been nominated by Obama.
It would have been one thing if Congress had said, for example, that it wouldn’t vote on Srinivasan if Obama nominated him. The rejection of specific individuals has happened before.
Once again, you’re doing precisely what people complain Trump voters did. You didn’t address the actual argument. You actually said, “I don’t need to imagine any little scenarios.” But the little scenarios are highlighting the precise issue under discussion, and you haven’t engaged it at all.
(And why is it “little?”)
You’re saying Bork did something deemed illegal, and that claim’s substance is being rebutted. You have not addressed that rebuttal.
It is not being rebutted, someone is trying to explain it away. Are you denying it was deemed illegal by a court of law? No. So you ain’t rebutting jack.
I’m arguing that the “deeming illegal” was not a meaningful examination of the issue. Typically, when we hear “court of law,” we think of a full and complete conclusion with the full weight of the court system and its checks and balances.
Here, I am showing that this particular court of law was not that way: that although you are using the decision to show that Bork did wrong, he never had a chance to participate in the court of law. And that neither side which DID participate had any interest in a different result.
And the fact that you refuse, CarnalK to address the “little scenario” I postulated shows exactly how you’re avoiding the issue. Your statement is, effectively, “Because A is true, B follows.” To which the reply has been, “Here is why A is not really true. Thus, B does not necessarily follow.” To which your response is, “A is true, you are wrong, but I refuse to try and show why you are wrong because I’m simply rejecting your argument out of hand.”
That’s not valid. And my “little scenario” shows exactly why. YOU would be most aggrieved under my scenario. So should Bork.
In essence, you’re saying, “I believe Bork did something illegal; a court agreed, so for me, that’s the end of the discussion.” When it is pointed out that the court in question did not act as a court, but merely as a clerk, you wave that away with your hand saying, “it’s still a court opinion; that’s all that counts.” Well, no, it’s not.
I’m not sure why this whole thread has become a hijack, but Bork’s rejection was bi-partisan with six Republicans voting against the guy. So, I’m not sure why this is always held out as the ultimate partisan move regarding SC justice nominations. The Democrats started it! along with 6 Republicans…