Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/14/2002 10:17:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 10:20:47 PM EDT
You wanna go camping?
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 10:28:58 PM EDT
Your not my type. I appreciate the sentiment though.[:D]
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 10:32:30 PM EDT
It comes from the name of Robert Bork, who was an appellate federal judge in DC when he was nominated to the Supreme Court by Pres. Reagan in 1987. He was defeated for no good reason by the DemocRat controlled Senate. Nowadays, "to Bork" someone has come to mean simply mounting a strong opposition to confirmation driven solely by political considerations, and also involves the use of any number of ethically suspect methods for defeating a nomination, including a public campaign of lies and distortions. Eric The(Erudite)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 10:33:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/14/2002 11:10:36 PM EDT by Benjamin0001]
BORK: During the Reagen years, Reagen selected a nominee to the supreme Court. His name was Robert Bork. Now Bork is a Constitutional Theorist, one of the best that has ever lived. And the Democrats got to asking him questions , as is due each nominee to the supreme court. And as they Asked their questions, it became apparent that Borks brand of Constitutional Thinking, made the Democrats look like the SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST (&(*&(*(^(() THEY ARE, and that BORK knew more about Consititutional Theory and the Philosophical underpinnings , both Logical, Epistemological,etc. of that same constitution then the democrats every thought of knowing. In fact it may be argued that he totally invalidated everything the Democrats ever believed in. And the man who would have made one of the best Supreme Court Justices to ever sit on the bench saw his nomination struck down out of politics. This is know as being Borked now. Benjamin EDITED TO CORRECT SPELLING BECAUSE I GOT PISSED OFF WRITING IT.
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 10:36:29 PM EDT
Thank you all very much.
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 10:37:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 10:44:07 PM EDT
To "Bork" means to reject a nominee based purely on ideology rather than qualifications. Usually done by Democ[b]rat[/b]s since they usually controlled the Senate. The term "Bork" comes from the astoundingly arrogant, vicious, organized and politicized treatment the Democ[b]rat[/b]-controlled Senate gave to a highly conservative Reagan nominee to the SCOTUS, named Robert Bork. Back in 1987 Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the SCOTUS. Bork was universally regarded as a man of great intellect and certainly THE most QUALIFIED man to be nominated. The Bork hearings were unlike those for any previous Supreme Court nominee. In confirming judicial nominees, the Senate historically had defined its role narrowly. It considered nominees' qualifications and integrity, but NOT their judicial views or philosophy. With rare exceptions, the Senate refrained from delving into how a nominee would be likely to vote on specific issues. But the Bork case was all about judicial ideology--and power. But Bork had highly conservative views and a high public profile. No one questioned his qualifications or his intellect, but many felt he was an extremist who interpreted the constitutional rights of individuals much too narrowly. (i.e. in all likelihood he would vote against Roe v. Wade) The Democrat-controlled Senate delayed confirmation hearings for two months, giving Bork opponents plenty of time to swing into action. Women's groups and civil rights groups quickly mobilized to fight the nomination. Soon they were joined by a host of environmental, health, labor, and consumer groups, ranging from Common Cause and the Sierra Club to Planned Parenthood and the National Mental Health Association. Many of these groups had never before lobbied for or against Supreme Court nominees, but felt that Bork was a special case. Ultimately, a majority of the committee opposed confirmation, and the full Senate turned Bork down, 42-58. The vote was largely along partisan lines, with only six Republicans crossing over to oppose Bork and only two Democrats willing to support him. The experience of Robert Bork before the Senate changed forever the way the Senate now "chooses" who will be on the SCOTUS. The "trial" of Clarence Thomas five years later was just another example of an attempt to "Bork" another conservative nominee.
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 10:44:49 PM EDT
The Swedish Chef says it a whole lot...
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 10:48:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: Oh really? I was 10 in 1987, and I don't remember that occurance. Got a link to what Bork believes in?
View Quote
Get his book [url=http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060987197?tag=viglink1659178-ar15-20][b]Slouching Towards Gomorrah[/b][/url] Here's the "unbiased"[puke]review from Amazon... [i]Robert Bork will go down as one of history's footnotes. Nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan in 1987, he was voted down by the Senate following a no-holds barred confirmation fight. Almost a decade later, he returns to reopen old wounds with [b]Slouching towards Gomorrah[/b], an extended attack against everything liberal. From pop culture and our universities to the church (Protestant and Roman Catholic) and the Supreme Court--the very institution he once fought so hard to join--Bork finds fault wherever he looks. This is a bitter book from a passionate man who has very little good to say about the world he lives in.[/i] Unless you're a raving liberal, this is a MUST-READ for any conservative.
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 10:52:47 PM EDT
Born in 1927, Bork earned a law degree at the University of Chicago in 1953, joined a Chicago law firm, and then the Yale Law School faculty. In 1973, as Solicitor General -- the lawyer charged with representing the United States in cases that came before the Supreme Court -- he was called upon by President Richard Nixon to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Both Attorney General Elliot Richardson and the deputy attorney general, William Ruckelshaus, had previously refused to carry out Nixon's orders, but Bork did the deed. Remaining the solicitor general until 1977, he then returned to Yale to teach, and in 1982 was chosen to serve as a federal appellate judge. Throughout his career Bork was highly critical of the judicial activism practiced by the Supreme Court in milestone cases involving abortion, affirmative action and civil rights. Bork claimed he was a strict constructionist who would exercise "judicial restraint." In his view, too many judges (and Supreme Court justices) had been interpreting the intent of the Constitution much too broadly. He opposed the 1965 Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a broad right of privacy that was not stated in the Constitution. Bork was also a foe of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that gave women the right to have an abortion, calling the decision "a serious and wholly unjustifiable usurpation of state legislative authority." The courts, he felt, should not thwart the will of the popularly-elected lawmakers, and judges ought not to substitute their values for the "original intent" of the Constitution's framers. What made Bork dangerous from the liberal perspective was the undeniable fact that he was one of the most astute legal scholars in the country; the American Bar Association (ABA) had given him its highest rating: "exceptionally well-qualified."
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 10:54:34 PM EDT
Cont... As Bork's September 15 confirmation hearing approached, liberal and conservative pressure groups spent an unprecedented $20 million in campaigns to either demonize or praise the candidate. The AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause, the NAACP and the National Organization of Women was just a few of the organizations who hurled themselves into the fray in order to prevent Bork's ascension to the highest court in the land. They argued that the Ninth Amendment, which states that the "enumeration . . . of certain rights" in the Constitution "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," justified judicial activism. In other words, the Constitution acknowledged unidentified rights and it was up to the Supreme Court to define and defend them in keeping with the premise that Americans should live in a free society where all people were equally protected under the law. Bork's opinions and writings, said his critics, revealed a man who posed a serious threat to basic principles of social justice ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ SOCIAL JUSTICE: There can only be Justice, Social Justice is when a COmmunist gets to decide whether you are a CAPITALIST PIG WHO NEEDS TO DIE, or a SOCIALIST WORKER who needs welfare.<______ Yes that is my .02 cents worth.
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 10:54:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/14/2002 11:00:31 PM EDT
Senator Edward Kennedy -- "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution."
View Quote
With intellectual Rigor such as kennedy's who needs Robert Bork anyway??? LORD I LOVE PLAYING THE WASP OF TWICKINHAM.
Attorney General Edwin Meese III -- "The distortion of the process was done completely by this small band of special-interest lobbyists and left-wing groups who engaged in a highly-organized, well financed political campaign . . . . The important thing now is to be sure the public and the Senate recognize the kind of gutter politics that was played by some of these left-wing groups. There's never been anything like it in history."
View Quote
The Washington Post (editorial) -- "Judge Bork has retained from his academic days an almost frightening detachment from, not to say indifference toward, the real-world consequences of his views . . . . What people . . . needed . . . was simple assurance that, in addition to the forensic brilliance, the personal integrity, and the care of the law, Robert Bork's moral sensibility could be engaged . . . that he had a feeling for justice, not just for the law. They are not always the same."
View Quote
Judge Robert H. Bork -- "Liberal, moderate, conservative shouldn't apply to judging. The correct philosophy is to judge according to the intent of the legislature or the intent of the Constitution's framers. Judges are overwhelmingly from a very narrow segment of society, and if they begin to read their own ideals into the law, then most of society isn't represented.
View Quote
And the man himself. Benjamin
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 6:04:52 AM EDT
Bork? Isn't she a pop singer that likes to dress up like a chicken? [:D]
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 6:54:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By marvl: Bork? Isn't she a pop singer that likes to dress up like a chicken? [:D]
View Quote
DANG!, Ya beat Me to it! [;)] Tall Shadow
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 6:59:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By QBit: The Swedish Chef says it a whole lot...
View Quote
Now that's funnier than mine.
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 7:04:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/15/2002 11:18:02 PM EDT
I've read some of Bork's writings; he is adamantly ANTI-Second Amendment. The leftists did us a favor on this one, at least where gun rights are concerned.
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 2:14:41 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 3:34:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Originally Posted By 71-Hour_Achmed: I've read some of Bork's writings; he is adamantly ANTI-Second Amendment. The leftists did us a favor on this one, at least where gun rights are concerned.
View Quote
Explain, if you would.
View Quote
What is there to explain?? He doesn't believe that the Second Amendment means anything. He thinks the "assault weapon ban" is great. Same deal with Scalia. I don't know if it was recent enough to be included in the DejaNews (now Google Groups) archives, but you might do a search for a post written by Todd Louis Green several years ago, after he met Scalia during a law-school trip. Scalia assured him and his classmates that the Supreme Court would never uphold the Second Amendment as an individual right because they don't believe in that shit. What, did you think the conservative Republican types were your friends??
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 3:44:40 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 5:02:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: Thank you, that is the kind of explanation I was looking for, because it was unclear whether he believed the 2nd represented an individual right and he hated that, or whether he believed it just didn't mean much to individuals.
View Quote
Glad to, and sorry for the snippy tone; I've been arguing too much against ETH lately. [:D]
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 6:01:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2002 6:02:17 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By 71-Hour_Achmed: I've read some of Bork's writings; he is adamantly ANTI-Second Amendment. The leftists did us a favor on this one, at least where gun rights are concerned.
View Quote
Bork's writing from [url=http://www.dadi.org/bork.htm]Slouching Towards Gomorrah[/url] [b]"Gun control shifts the equation in favor of the criminal. Gun control proposals are nothing more than a modern liberal suggestion that government, which is unable to protect its citizens, make sure that citizens cannot defend themselves"[/b] ------------------------------------------ An [url=http://www.aei.org/e%20drive/web/public/tae/taemj97t.htm]Interview with Robert Bork[/url] TAE: How about gun control? BORK: [b]"Where guns are available, criminals are less likely to become violent or to break into houses because they don’t know what they’re going to face. If you ban all guns, only the law-abiding will turn them in, and you accomplish nothing except to disarm good citizens."[/b] ------------------------------------------ He doesn't sound like an Anti to me.
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 6:11:53 AM EDT
I read his book back in 1996. He is anti Second Amendment, as previously stated by several posters. I remember a line in the book that went something like: "Why would anyone need a rifle in their garage to defend this country when we have billion-dollar stealth bombers...?" (obviously a paraphrase).
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 6:51:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By tool: I read his book back in 1996. He is anti Second Amendment, as previously stated by several posters. I remember a line in the book that went something like: "Why would anyone need a rifle in their garage to defend this country when we have billion-dollar stealth bombers...?" (obviously a paraphrase).
View Quote
I gave a direct quote from his book showing he thinks gun control is pointless. What's your quote? Not picking a fight, just trying to clarify. If I'm wrong - show me and I'll be convinced.
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 8:30:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 71-Hour_Achmed: Same deal with Scalia. I don't know if it was recent enough to be included in the DejaNews (now Google Groups) archives, but you might do a search for a post written by Todd Louis Green several years ago, after he met Scalia during a law-school trip. Scalia assured him and his classmates that the Supreme Court would never uphold the Second Amendment as an individual right because they don't believe in that shit.
View Quote
I am not sure if I believe this and even if it were true it does not mean that Scalia is against the Second. Taken out of the context of the discussion it is hard to know if Scalia was "assuring", or warning. You put me or anyone here on the Supreme Court and they would and could say the same thing. Suppose after your first few months as a Justice of the SC you were having lunch with some friends and shooting buddies and you said "well Bob, after some 12 weeks on the High Court I am certain of one thing, the Supreme Court will never uphold the Second Amendment." Now suppose someone overhears you and posts here, "Hey everyone, I heard Achmed assuring his friends that the Supreme Court would not uphold the Second Amendment because they don' believe in it. Achmed is against the Second Amendment!" I would like to read a quote from him on a case or in an interview where he came right out and said this was his view. Otherwise I am very supsicious, based on his Natural Law philosophy, that he would be against private individuals keeping and bearing arms.
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 10:32:51 AM EDT
From: Todd Louis Green (51green@cua.edu) Subject: I spoke with J. Scalia today ... Newsgroups: rec.guns Date: 1994-11-09 11:01:06 PST I had an opportunity to speak with Supreme Court Justice Scalia this morning along with a nuber of other students from my law school's Federalist Society [one of the advantages to going to school in D.C.]. Right before he finished taking questions, I managed to slip this one in. It followed the theme of most of his speech, which was about how the American people stopped looking at the Constitution as a document that "means what it says" and have started looking at it as a document which "*should* have said such-and-such." The question I asked was: "Given the new manner in which the American people seem to want to interpret and even ignore the U.S. Constitution, do you think the 2nd Amendment has a hope of outliving the 20th century?" His answer could be paraphrased as follows: 1) The Second Amendment, unlike most of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, will never be "extended" to the states. [for those of you who are unaware of this, the Bill of Rights applies, on its own, *only* to the federal government. Until the early and middle parts of this century, states didn't have to worry about cruel & unusual punishment, searches and seizures, forcing confessions, etc., unless their State constitution gave such protections. During the Warren Era on the Court, many of these protections from the US Constitution were "extended" to the States by way of the 14th Amendment's "Due Process" Clause. Basically, this clause lets the Supreme Court decide which parts of the Bill of Rights they really like, and force everyone to respect them, while ignoring others.] The reason the 2nd Amendment won't be "extened" is because, in Scalia's words, "We just don't like it." I believe he was speaking about the Court, or the U.S., as a whole. 2) As far as Federal prohibitions against firearms, he was unsure. He admitted that he has not had cause to examine the issue. He commented that the "preamble" to the 2nd Amendment, the part about the militia, makes for a "valid argument" that the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the states to have a militia. PLEASE note that he didn't say he thinks that's what it means. He does, however, recognize that such an argument exists. 3) All in all, he didn't seem very optimistic for the near-term future of the 2nd Amendment. He made a very good point, tho: The saddest part is not that the government might want to take away our guns. The saddest part is that SOCIETY no longer trusts its neighbors enough to own guns to begin with. That, Scalia said, is the road to the end of democracy. I'd also like to note another comment the Justice made earlier on. He commented that, whether he likes it or not, it is unmistakable that a number of "rights," such as the right to abortion, the right to privacy, and the right to raise one's children the way one wants, WHETHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS OR NOT, are *not* in the Constitution. He said he would defend his right to raise his children "with arms, as long as I have them," but that it's still not in the Constitution.
View Quote
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 10:33:55 AM EDT
In other words, there is a difference between what rights we have because we're human beings, and what rights we have under the Constitution. So what does this all mean? IMHO, it means CONGRATS on the election, because keeping our legislators away from the 2nd Amendment and its state brethren is the *only* way to keep our firearms. No one is ever going to tell a state goverment it can't ban all weapons. Let me say that again: The U.S. Supreme Court will *not* stop a state government from outlawing the possession of firearms. Just look at the District of Columbia if you doubt it's true. As for the Feds, maybe and maybe not, but DON'T COUNT ON IT. Keep the gun-grabbers out of Congress, out of your state leigslatures, and out of power. We won a major battle this Term, and hopefully more good is to come in '96. But always Vote, because it's the only ammo you have which can save your rights. Todd Louis Green ---------------- Don't tread on me.
View Quote
I believe the Bork quote which convinced me that he is anti-gun is from "The Tempting of America", his first (AFAIK) book which came out in 1991, shortly after he was borked. I don't know where my copy is, but if I find it, I'll post it. From what I remember, he wrote something about how nobody needs an evil assault weapon. For those of you on this site, devoted to the "assault weapon" of choice, I think you would find it somewhat disturbing that he would want to prohibit them. But that's your call.
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 1:20:14 PM EDT
Wow, and I thought bork was you got when you crossed a cow and a pig...
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 1:44:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/16/2002 6:29:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2002 6:40:37 PM EDT by ThunderStick]
71 hour achmed, What I have read does not concur with your conclusions. Your article about Scalia does NOT say that he is against the second amendment, rather, I get a different impression. He has not come to a solid conclusion because he has yet to examine the issue in detail. This guy is a serious scholar and he doesn't make pronouncements willy-nilly to some reporter. He will wait for an actual case. As I read the article Scalia is not talking about himself (he did not say "I", he said "we") he is talking about politicians, the public and the judiciary in general. He was clearly lamenting the lack of concern over gun rights (saying he would fight for the right to raise his children with guns, for example). To me, he is either noncommital or leaning in favor of the 2nd. Other articles that I have read in the Wall Street Journal and speeches given by Scalia DO NOT support your contention AT ALL. He is a strict supporter of the constitution as it is and is not in favor of legislating from the bench. The reality is that he will PROBABLY support the second amendment should such a case make it to the Supreme Court. Futher you are also wrong about Bork. I have seen him in interviews (C-SPAN, CNN others) and he believes in 2nd amendment rights (he was very clear). I will believe my own eyes and ears before I believe your allegations.
Top Top