He would have been more successful if he had not insisted upon submitting his Judiciary Committee testimony in Swedish.
No one is suggesting that being really smart is the only thing you need to sit on the top bench, Leo Bloom. Bork was never getting on that Court while most members of the Judiciary Committee were old enough to remember the Saturday Night Massacre. But a piercing intellect seems to be a necessary qualification, and when Bush nominated Miers, while nobody said anything outright, you didn’t hear statements of support from GOP members of the committee either. Because she did the rounds, and she didn’t have the chops.
–Cliffy
He stopped being “one of the most piercing analytical legal minds of the day” on December 19, 2012. And back when Bill Clinton was a horn dog governor of Arkansas, Hillary was nationally recognized as a children’s legal advocate in her own right. I actually knew about her before Bubba got on the national radar. But she will not receive a USSC appointment. She will, however, be the 45th POTUS.
Yeah, but Clinton and Meiers aren’t crazy.
Yes, the smarts are not the only qualification. However, there seems to be a basic level of excess intelligence reuired to qualify, and ItheHO of even many Republican senators, Meirs did not meet that standard.
OTOH, if Hilary ever gets in front of the senate as a nominee, I seriously doubt whether intellect will come up. Bias or experience - maybe. Smarts, not an issue.
Bork didn’t appear to me to be unhinged, just unprincipled. What happened to him was payback for obstructing the investigation of Watergate at Nixon’s behest when Bork was Solicitor General and he agreed to fire the special prosecutor after his betters refused and resigned. He was the kind of man who could instantly come up with a rationale to back whatever it is he needed to do. And in that instance of constitutional crisis, he found the backbone necessary be on Nixon’s side. Even if he weren’t mercurial in his opinion writing, backing Nixon at that late date showed really shitty judgment and personal ambition.
Read Slouching to Gomorrah. He’s crazy.
From the Wiki summary of it, Slouching Towards Gomorrah sounds like pretty standard conservative fare. The problems he complains of are not the result of liberalism and its egalitarianism, but rather a changing demographic and the result of the idiotic war in Vietnam. Both of which were situations the conservatives tended to use to make worse by attacking through wedge issues and idiotic red scares and baiting. Liberals insisting on their constitutional rights and getting rulings protecting those rights for liberals, conservatives and everyone else hasn’t caused those problems or made them worse. What Bork objects to are people objecting to infringement on their liberties and vindicating them in Court. The alternative is obvious.
Well, I suppose Zombie Bork would still probably say more than Thomas.
Huh. I didn’t notice he died.
Neither did Mrs. Bork.
Seriously, though - although I was no fan of Bork, politically or ideologically, I interviewed him in 1989 when he spoke at a local university. Very smart and not a maniac.
What was your takeaway quote from the interview? 
Fun fact: “intellectual feast” is shorthand for “BRAAAAAIIINS.”
Thanks for the answers. Sometimes I feel that at least ONE justice should not be from the legal field.
Since the question is answered, a quick follow up, what was the opinion of Taft a justice? I know it’s said, he was better on the court than as president.
The Court wasn’t all that prestigious at that point. It’s decisions were pretty much restricted to making sure that nobody passed any laws regulating business.
That being said, he was an ok Justice. He was probably a better administrator and lobbyist for the Court than he was a Justice. He got the new (and current) Supreme Court building built. he managed to get a law passed that gave the Supreme Court more flexibility in the cases they could take. And he consolidated Supreme Court power over the lower courts. From an administrative standpoint, he’s considered one of the better and stronger Chief Justices.
In terms of decisions, you have to keep in mind my first paragraph. He was responsible for Balzac v Porto Rico (One of the Insular Cases…said that people in oversees Territories aren’t protected by the Bill of Rights), Lum v Rice (It’s ok to make Chinese kids go to Colored schools), Olmstead v US (wiretapping doesn’t violate the Constitution)
There really aren’t any cases he wrote that are standout, honestly.
I would agree with all that.
RNATB, what I most remember about my Bork interview was that, at the time, he was pissed that Senate Democrats had just defeated the nomination of John Tower to serve as Secretary of Defense - Bork saw it as a power play against then-President George H.W. Bush. He also told me that it was an open secret in judicial circles that, late in the Carter Administration, a White House staffer who was a personal friend of Justice Thurgood Marshall had approached him and asked - oh so tactfully - if he would be willing to resign so that Carter could appoint a younger justice in the same mold. Marshall said “Hell, no!” So now we have Clarence Thomas.
Bork also joked that he had lost count of the number of times he’d been mistaken for C. Everett Koop - even when he had a lit cigarette in his hand!