One Man's Florida 2000 is Another Man's Bork
---
A few days ago Paul Krugman got a fat slice of "get over it" pie when he tried to engage in some rather blatant revisionism regarding the Florida fiasco in the 2000 presidential election.
But of course revisionism and the need to "get over it" is thoroughly bipartisan:
It may well be true that the Bork confirmation vote was especially partisan. It may well be true that advocacy groups waged all-out campaigns against him. It may well be true that his nomination sparked previously unseen protests, demonstrations, television commercials, "briefing books" and such.
And he deserved every bit of it.
It is patently absurd to posit either that Robert Bork was "indisputably well-qualified" or that his judicial philosophy was "well-considered." Robert Bork was an unapologetic radical with jurisprudential views (e.g., regarding the First Amendment and the Ninth Amendment) so unorthodox and so indefensible that it's hard to see how he was even confirmed to a circuit court position, let alone nominated to the Supreme Court.
Deconstructing the Bork nomination in this revisionist way puts the cart before the horse. Was Bork rejected because of fierce partisan opposition to his nomination, or was there fierce partisan opposition to his nomination because he so totally deserved to be rejected?
The OpinionJournal piece is filled with several additional distortions: It points out that the Bork vote had a relative short floor debate while omitting that it had the longest confirmation hearings up to that point (five days) and that the outcome of the vote was well-known in advance anyway. It blames Bork's defeat on a Democratic Senate -- a 54-46 Democratic Senate -- while the actual vote was 58-42 against; do the party-line math. It mentions an organized campaign of what today we would call "fisking" his confirmation hearing testimony, but omits the fact that he flagrantly and undeniably tailored several of his answers (i.e., flip-flopped from his previous writings) to appear less radical to the Judiciary Committee -- he was fisked because there was fisking to be done.
The assertion that liberals (and only liberals) will "Bork" anyone and everyone they can isn't the point. The point is that Bork himself was "Borked" for a very simple reason: he deserved it. He has no one to blame but his ultra-radical self.
A relatively non-partisan account of the Bork confirmation battle is available here. See also this FindLaw commentary on the recent history of failed Supreme Court nominations -- all six of them.
But of course revisionism and the need to "get over it" is thoroughly bipartisan:
Still the fight over [Robert] Bork bears many lessons. One reason is that it centered on an indisputably well-qualified nominee's well-considered judicial philosophy, not on questions of competence or extrajudicial behavior.This is, of course, utter nonsense.
It may well be true that the Bork confirmation vote was especially partisan. It may well be true that advocacy groups waged all-out campaigns against him. It may well be true that his nomination sparked previously unseen protests, demonstrations, television commercials, "briefing books" and such.
And he deserved every bit of it.
It is patently absurd to posit either that Robert Bork was "indisputably well-qualified" or that his judicial philosophy was "well-considered." Robert Bork was an unapologetic radical with jurisprudential views (e.g., regarding the First Amendment and the Ninth Amendment) so unorthodox and so indefensible that it's hard to see how he was even confirmed to a circuit court position, let alone nominated to the Supreme Court.
Deconstructing the Bork nomination in this revisionist way puts the cart before the horse. Was Bork rejected because of fierce partisan opposition to his nomination, or was there fierce partisan opposition to his nomination because he so totally deserved to be rejected?
The OpinionJournal piece is filled with several additional distortions: It points out that the Bork vote had a relative short floor debate while omitting that it had the longest confirmation hearings up to that point (five days) and that the outcome of the vote was well-known in advance anyway. It blames Bork's defeat on a Democratic Senate -- a 54-46 Democratic Senate -- while the actual vote was 58-42 against; do the party-line math. It mentions an organized campaign of what today we would call "fisking" his confirmation hearing testimony, but omits the fact that he flagrantly and undeniably tailored several of his answers (i.e., flip-flopped from his previous writings) to appear less radical to the Judiciary Committee -- he was fisked because there was fisking to be done.
The assertion that liberals (and only liberals) will "Bork" anyone and everyone they can isn't the point. The point is that Bork himself was "Borked" for a very simple reason: he deserved it. He has no one to blame but his ultra-radical self.
A relatively non-partisan account of the Bork confirmation battle is available here. See also this FindLaw commentary on the recent history of failed Supreme Court nominations -- all six of them.
Related Posts (on one page):
- One Man's Florida 2000 is Another Man's Bork
- Bork, Big Government and "Big Bench"
- Bork: "Put the Berlin Wall Back Up"
Posted by KipEsquire on
24 August 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
