Reader Interactions
45Comments
Comments are closed.
Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.
Stamping your little feets and demanding that they see how important you are? Not working anymore.
So many bastards, so little time.
Decision time: keep arguing about the last election, or try to win the next one?
If ‘weird’ was the finish line, they ran through the tape and kept running.
When you’re in more danger from the IDF than from Russian shelling, that’s really bad.
All hail the time of the bunny!
The only way through is to slog through the muck one step at at time.
We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. keep building.
I have other things to bitch about but those will have to wait.
I did not have this on my fuck 2025 bingo card.
Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.
Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.
I like political parties that aren’t owned by foreign adversaries.
Anne Laurie is a fucking hero in so many ways. ~ Betty Cracker
They punch you in the face and then start crying because their fist hurts.
The arc of history bends toward the same old fuckery.
Many life forms that would benefit from greater intelligence, sadly, do not have it.
I desperately hope that, yet again, i am wrong.
Damn right I heard that as a threat.
The arc of the moral universe does not bend itself. it is up to us to bend it.
Republicans cannot even be trusted with their own money.
If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!
Bad people in a position to do bad things will do bad things because they are bad people. End of story.
Jim
At least they gave the interview (wankerview? It is Stuey Taylor) an appropriate title:
“The View From 1987”
The sad thing is, they could use it for much of the magazine.
Cat Lady
Because every one cares what an 82 year old bitter old white fart thinks about women’s rights.
Edit: block quote fAiL.
Comrade Stuck
Whack job? Well that’s one word to use. I would personally go with batshit insane leaving no room for ambiguity.
Ash Can
Does Clarence Thomas ever actually, you know, say anything?
Peter
A bit?????
KG
The line about admiring Thomas doesn’t really bother me all that much. I like Thomas much more than Scalia, or what I’ve seen of Roberts or Alito, so far.
This is the thing I don’t get:
I’ve had this discussion with a lot of conservative lawyers who want to see Roe overturned. None of them can answer the question of how you actually do that in the context of a legal opinion. As a matter of jurisprudence, I can’t see how it you do that other than saying, “yeah, they fucked up in that case.” The only way you over turn Roe is if you find that an unborn child is a person within the context of the 5th and/or 14th Amendment and therefore entitled to due process in being denied the right to life. But then you get into the issue of whether it’s a state action.
I will say this, Roe is a terribly written decision. And the court would have been much better off saying, “look the Ninth Amendment says there are other rights, the courts have always had a role in defining those rights (it’s called the common law), so we’re going to declare the right to privacy to be a constitutional right under the Ninth Amendment.” Though, I suppose that would be the way out for the conservative legal scholars, you just say that the right to privacy (if you even believe it exists) doesn’t extend to abortion.
Oh, and then there’s the fact that Roe isn’t the controlling precedent anymore.
Brian J
The current Supreme Court is really to the left? Well, then what the fuck would a rightward looking Court look like?
I also find it amusing that he sued the Yale Club (or threatened to sue) when he fell and was greatly injured in 2007. He settled out of court, but if you’re known for being pretty strongly against personal injury style cases, it seems like it takes a pretty big set of balls and a pretty massive ego to throw that belief aside when it comes to your own life. Unless there are some pretty significant nuances to his thoughts in that area, or some details of the case that I don’t know about, it’s remarkable act of hypocrisy.
KG
@4: he doesn’t ask a whole lot of questions at oral arguments (and by the way, asking a lot of questions is a relatively recent phenomenon). But he writes his fair share of opinions. And he’s much more consistent in his jurisprudence than Scalia.
Danton
@ Ash Can: Yes. I think he charges a $75,000 speaking fee.
The Other Steve
Just a bit?
Brendan
Of course Bork loves Thomas. Unlike Scalia, Thomas is not afraid to walk that strict constructionist nonsense all the way off the Crazy Cliff.
On many decisions, I’ve fallen to my knees and offered praise to St. Ronnie that we managed to get Kennedy in Bork’s seat. ‘Twas a bargain worth fighting for.
Though, for as nutty as Bork is, his biggest political sin was (is) being upfront about his beliefs and aims. In terms of Court outcomes, Bork is very much like John Roberts without the baby blues. He was unwilling to do the SCOTUS Nominee Dance, which even for Washington, involves an extraordinary amount of coyness and bullsh*tting.
geg6
Wow. That is some grade A stupid. And this guy is supposed be some sort of great legal mind? BWAHAHAHAHA! I understand the Constitution and the Founders better than he does. Dman, these “originalists” are just the most dim witted people on earth. Did he really claim that there was no such distinction among the Founders as liberal and conservative? They didn’t use that terminology, true. But the distinctions were there, they were real, and they were just as polarized and contentious as they are today, if not more. Do they think Hamilton, Madison, et al were some kind of angels who all agreed about everything and never had differences about the meanings of the principles they all agreed to and that those meanings would never evolve or change over time and through experience? Fuck me. Borking this asshole was a great day for this country. Would we’d had a few more Borkings since. This country would be in a much better place today.
b-psycho
Nice circular logic on the “what is judicial activism?” question. Why, if I didn’t know any better, I’d say he defined judicial activism as “rulings I happen to not agree with”!
In one respect he is correct though. It is all politics, and that should be acknowledged by both sides so this constant bickering can finally die. No one would knowingly nominate someone whose view of the Constitution they personally disagree with, let’s be honest here.
If I ever get hit in the head hard enough to scramble brain cells and somehow decide to run for US Senate as a result, and I win, I will oppose any nominee that broadly interprets executive power & narrowly interprets civil rights. If by some miracle I end up President someday, and I have a vacancy on the Supreme Court, if he’s still around at the time I’m nominating Radley fucking Balko.
“Originalism”, “Living document”…bullshit. Whoever wins just tries to put up the closest person to how they themselves think that they think they can get away with. Show me someone who says they’d nominate someone that didn’t share their views, and I will show you a liar.
JGabriel
OT, but found a post by Peterr, FDL’s resident working reverend, explicating the fundie dog-whistles embedded in Jenny Sanford’s statement to the press:
When I first read that, I took the latter half to mean, basically, “Mark, you can come back, but you’re gonna be in the doghouse for a long fucking time.”
Turns out, the phrase of most import there might be “Psalm 127“:
Anyway, the whole short essay is an informative read for those who are interested. Sounds like Jenny Sanford is making the case for divorcing her husband while keeping her fundie street cred.
.
geg6
b-psycho: No thanks on the Radley Balko. Shudder. But I agree with your general point. In your scenario, I would appoint the current lead attorney for the Pittsburgh ACLU. I think he’s a kickass defender of our civil liberties and, unlike Balko, has a sense of social justice that I, personally, would consider an equally important requirement as protecting civil liberties.
JGabriel
Moderated. Is there a 3 link rule? Anyway, please release?
.
AlanDownunder
Bork should have been disbarred for doing what Elliott Richardson resigned over rather than do, back in 1973. His nomination in 1987 was an insult to Congress and the American people. It was rightly treated as such.
Jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s
The five cases of judicial activism cited by conservapedia are:
1. Roe v Wade
2. Virginia vs Loving (interracial marriage)
3. Texas Sodomy case…
4. Ct birth control case
5. Brown vs Board of Education
So they think your sex should be limited to intercourse without birth control with your own race with a marital partner you met from your own school. Oh…and no abortion.
Kinda sick fucks when you think about them…like the Taliban.
b-psycho
@geg6: See? Refreshing honesty! I’d support Balko because he has a record of opposing many of the same things that I do, and he’s the most prominent critic of the Eric Cartman interpretation of law enforcement I could think of. You’d oppose Balko & support that ACLU attorney instead because that guy speaks to your view of social justice. If judicial nominees were discussed like that then it’d be so much easier for the public to follow the arguments.
Who is the guy in Pittsburgh you’re talking about, btw? I’m curious, did a search & couldn’t find a name listed, even on the ACLUs own site.
r€nato
Bork thinks this is a liberal, left-leaning Supreme Court… and proceeds to praise four of the five justices (Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts) who form the right-wing majority on the court.
I guess Bork would not be happy until all nine seats were filled by far-right wackjobs.
Turgidson
What a piece of shi….work. Piece of work.
Kicking that guy to the curb has to rank among the Dems’ greatest services to the country in the past 50 years.
Though I also have to thank Bobby Bork himself for actually being somewhat honest about his insanity in public, which made it easier to derail him. No judicial nominee has made that mistake since.
Keith
Bork reminds me of Gingrich in that both guys just can’t f’n let go of losing, even after 15-20 YEARS.
bit·ter [ bíttər ] – 1. strong and sharp in taste: having a sharp strong unpleasant taste such as the taste of orange peel 2. resentful: angry and resentful a bitter smile 3. difficult to accept: mentally painful, or very hard to accept; see also: Bork, Robert; Gingrich, Newton
inkadu
Shorter Geg6: The original intent of the Constitution was to be a living document.
steve s
So that’s
1 abortion
2 darkies
3 fags
4 sluts
5 more darkies
Kinda easy to see where Andy Schlafly’s major hangups are, isn’t it?
Allan
You guys actually read Bork’s answers? I bailed on Stu Taylor’s first question.
MikeJ
It’s easier than that.
1. sex
2. sex
3. sex
4. sex
5. black people being near your daughter, where they might have sex with them.
Anne Laurie
They recently forced the poor sorry bastrd to trot out in public and be the sole vote against retaining the Voting Rights Act. Much as I despise everything he stands for, I have to admit that Justice Thomas may be the world’s greatest living example of crime being its own punishment.
Comrade Darkness
@AlanDownunder: I wish I remembered it that way. All I remember is he was derailed only for being a pr0n addict. (and to this day only video rental records are protected as a result of that, not say, library circulation records)
You’d like to think it were for being a waterboy for Nixon, but that’s not what I remember.
Zuzu's Petals
@Allan:
And that first bit – saying Obama said empathy was his key standard for choosing a justice – was a flat out lie.
What Obama actually said:
Batocchio
A hack interviews a nutjob. (Also, Nixon’s happy hitman. ) Only a far right zealot could possibly call the current court left-leading and liberal!
Bork and Scalia like to pretend that “originalism” isn’t interpretative. And Scalia and Thomas – Bork’s favorites – are the most “activist” judges in terms of overturning precedent, which puts all of Bork’s radical bullshit into perspective. One of Bork’s pals actually didn’t believe in judicial review – although I don’t think even Bork goes that far. He’s just a callous, authoritarian scumbag. Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia are bad enough, but at least we dodged Bork.
aww
@ 6
empathy.
however, irony is forever lost.
Zuzu's Petals
Bork says:
Does anyone know exactly where Sotomayor ever said or even implied such a thing? I sure don’t know of it.
Not that Bork would be capable of inflammatory, BS rhetoric or anything.
geg6
b-psycho: I’ve been wracking my brain to remember his name and I can’t. But I know it’s something very Eastern European, probably Polish. I want to say “Walsczak,” but that’s not it. Damn. I’m getting old.
kommrade reproductive vigor
And Everest is a bit of a mountain.
Methinks Bork is a bit bitter. Also.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
One of my roommates in law school was the President of the school Federalist Society. A right-wing nutjob, himself, although a pretty good guy personally. He met Bork at some right-wing Federalist Society conference. He said he was a complete flaming asshole. The rest of the time we were in law school, he had nothing good to say about Bork. Any time the guy’s name came up, he started harping on what an arrogant piece of shit he was to interact with. (He had nothing but praise for Ted Olson personally- he said Olson’s a great guy, a very affable and pleasant person to be around. I’ll take his word on that.)
Bork is a useful reminder anytime someone complains about the US Supreme Court. He reminds us that things could be much, much worse.
IndieTarheel
Bitter tears, aged like a not-so-fine whine.
chopper
@Batocchio:
exactly. unless you think we should own slaves and women shouldn’t get to vote, you’re not a true ‘originalist’, you’re a ‘judicial activist’ who’s just pickier than the rest.
Tokyokie
Of course, the most egregious example of judicial activism in our country’s history was Marbury v. Madison, without which, Bork and other egotistical assholes would never want to be on the Supreme Court. But I always thought that Bork’s nomination could have been torpedoed simply by asking him, “Sir, your firing of Archibald Cox as special Watergate prosecutor was no doubt legal, but was it right?” It’s not a matter of empathy so much as it is knowing right from wrong, and Bork never has. Hell, he probably speaks reverently of Roger Taney and considers Dred Scott to be a beacon of judicial probity.
The Other Steve
@Jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s: No Miranda rights?
joe from Lowell
We believe you!
Don
Are they even pretending anymore? Like this answer from Bork:
Personally I think one of the most telling answers is this one:
If you think the press should be on someone’s “side” then you’ve got no business interpreting the constitution.
Funkhauser
I’ll just admit my shock that the editors of that publication think that people should pay for the privilege of seeing Stuart Taylor Jr., hack, abet a hit job by a crazy person.
Glad we canceled that subscription years ago.
Crusty Dem
Wow. I wish I could visit (briefly) the alternate universe where the right-wing section of the USSC consists of Bork, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Roberts. Any bets on whether there’s a constitutional ban on abortion there?
Dude, you never even met those assholes! The hubris of assuming the writers would think exactly the same way you do is awesome. My lone question to Bork would be “Where do you disagree with the original writers of the constitution?” The point being that he’s constructed a row of box seats in his mind where those long-dead white men who wrote the constitution are cheering every word out of his mouth.
mere mortal
It’s probably unfair to classify Bork as a whack job.
Perhaps we should take him at his word that he is a strict originalist, that any ruling he would make must be supported by text in the Constitution as understood by those who wrote (or amended) it, when they wrote (or amended) it.
Which would make him a supporter of law that is manifestly and overwhelmingly racist, sexist, and beholden to propertied interests, except in those Amendments which expressly countermand such aspects.
Not necessarily a whack job, but a candidate for the Supreme Court who should be rejected out of hand by representatives of a very different United States of America.
Batocchio
@Zuzu’s Petals:
See, that’s interesting, because his favorite justice, Clarence Thomas, did exactly that. Thomas praised affirmative action initially, crediting it for allowing him a career and opportunities otherwise denied him – and he’s since changed his mind, apparently. “Pulling up the ladder behind him” is how I’ve heard some people put it.