printRobert Bork: Sotomayor Pick ‘A Bad Mistake’
By Barbara Grant
What does it mean, “to bork”? Readers too young to recall the 1987 Senate confirmation hearings on Robert Bork’s nomination as Supreme Court Justice might refer to this piece in which Judge Robert Bork discusses Sonia Sotomayor and calls her nomination a “bad mistake.”
To “bork” a nominee means to block him (or her) from appointment to public office. Bork avers that President Barack Obama’s standard of “empathy” in judge selection bodes ill for the selection of a justice who supports constitutional principles. He notes that “wise Latina” Sotomayor has less than a stellar record in her judicial opinions, and is in fact noted for bullying from the bench. However, he also offers that she will likely not be “any worse than some recent white male appointees.”
Bork calls himself an originalist, which means that he tries to interpret the Constitution in the manner it was drafted, at all times seeking first principles. This is different from the “judicial activism” principle currently held by many, in which justices twist the document to conform to preconceived political stances.
Robert Bork is adamantly opposed to twisting the Constitution; he also believes his opposition to Roe v. Wade on constitutional grounds was pivotal to his nomination’s rejection.
Where does the current trend toward “empathy” leave a highly principled man like Robert Bork? Still interested in the Constitution, but also wary of our justices’ decisions. “If you want to know what the constitution means, you will not learn it from the court,” he said.
BAB Contributor Barbara Grant is a consultant in electro-optical engineering and co-author of “The Art of Radiometry,” a forthcoming book on the measurement of light, to be published by SPIE PressB.
I agree with Bork that it is silly to filibuster our wise (grammatically challenged) “Latina woman” because Obama has the votes and any other nominee will likely be worse. I also agree on Thomas being better than Scalia and also that the Court since 1937 has gone so far from the Constitution that is mere pipedream of a concept. Ironically, a “living constitution” (e.g. elastic Orwellian blather) is, in reality, dead – while a dead constitution (e.g. an unchanging fundamental code of laws) is actually living.
Bork, however, is not all that wonderful on Civil Liberties. One past Justice who stood for individual liberty was Pierce Butler (1923-1939) [ See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_Butler_(justice) and Mencken’s essay on skewering Justice Holmes in his Chrestomathy- http:// http://www.amazon.com/Mencken-Chrestomathy…/0394752090 ]. Butler was the sole dissenter in Palko v. Connecticut (double jeopardy) and Buck v. Bell (forced sterilization). It is interesting now that Big Man Obama and his Solicitor General Elana Kagan are supporting “hate crimes” and preventive detection” laws that violate: federalism, double jeopardy, and due process (keeping people in prison indefinitely beyond the expiration of their sentences). On these issues, the Big Man is as odious as the Bushman: see http://www.reason.com/news/show/134308.html.