RIP Antonin Scalia

Let's see if you can actually figure this out.

 

Then why didn't he decline Nixon's proposal, right then and there?

"Thank you, Mr. President, I appreciate that. It's been a lifelong dream of mine. However, please don't nominate me because I don't believe I should be rewarded for this, in any way."

Nope, he admitted he "lacked the courage." Instead, his silence indicated acceptance of the reward for the firing.

 

Jesus. Bork himself didn't believe he could actually be confirmed. Let's get this straight: He carried out one of Nixon's most diabolical acts -- firing Cox -- when the attorney general and assistant attorney general rightly refused. He wasn't close to fit for the Supreme Court and was justly rejected. Silly discussion.

 

You just seem to have a problem with strong German Americans in positions of power.

 

Quakers.

 

You got that pretty wrong, YF. Here are Kennedy's first words in his famous floor speech, given within 45 minutes of the nomination:

Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, and I urge the Senate to reject it.

In the Watergate scandal of 1973, two distinguished Republicans—Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus—put integrity and the Constitution ahead of loyalty to a corrupt President. They refused to do Richard Nixon's dirty work, and they refused to obey his order to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. The deed devolved on Solicitor General Robert Bork, who executed the unconscionable assignment that has become one of the darkest chapters for the rule of law in American history.

That act—later ruled illegal by a Federal court—is sufficient, by itself, to disqualify Mr. Bork from this new position to which he has been nominated. The man who fired Archibald Cox does not deserve to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. Bork should also be rejected by the Senate because he stands for an extremist view of the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court that would have placed him outside the mainstream of American constitutional jurisprudence in the 1960s, let alone the 1980s. He opposed the Public Accommodations Civil Rights Act of 1964. He opposed the one-man one-vote decision of the Supreme Court the same year. He has said that the First Amendment applies only to political speech, not literature or works of art or scientific expression.

Under the twin pressures of academic rejection and the prospect of Senate rejection, Mr. Bork subsequently retracted the most neanderthal of these views on civil rights and the first amendment. But his mind-set is no less ominous today.

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, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would becensored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.

 

Don't tell that to Republicans. They're using Bork as a prime excuse for their actions now.

It's been 42 years since the end of Watergate, and Republicans still haven't gotten over it. Which is why they tried to nail Clinton for lying about his sex life and have threatened to impeach Obama for any minor thing numerous times.

 

Fair enough.

The part I quoted is what I remember, and what I think is perhaps most remembered.

Didn't look at the whole speech.

 

Would Teddy still get away with Mary Jo's death in Robert Bork's Anerica?

 

You're mocking Marco Rubio, aren't you?

 

At least Bork believed it actually applied to political speech, which is more than you can say for today's lefties.

 

Yes, they've been looking to even the score all this time.