Robert Bork Dead

[jillian]

Why not? Can't someone be eulogized in such a thread?

well, i can't keep you from waxing poetic. i try to keep this type of thread civil. but if you start politicizing it, people, myself included, will respond appropriately.

and then it will go from being a thread about 'very sad' the man has passed away... to a discussion about the politics of it...

and that won't end well.

but it's up to you.

Pffft.... What a joke!

You know you posted it so you appear to be tolerant of the man.

You fuckers hated the man, and you are hoping someone politicizes this thread.

You FAKE touchy feely libs make me sick!

stop acting like a moron, dear.

i didn't hate him.

i disagreed with him.

there's a big difference, which i do understand the radical right has trouble with.

 

[percysunshine]

jillian is tricky. Might get a 1,000 post thread out of this one...chuckle

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rip.

 

[jillian]

Judge Bork’s death, of complications of heart disease, was confirmed by his son, Robert H. Bork Jr.

Judge Bork, who was senior judicial adviser this year to the presidential campaign of Gov. Mitt Romney, played a small but crucial role in the Watergate crisis as the solicitor general under President Richard M. Nixon. He carried out orders to fire a special prosecutor in what became known as “the Saturday Night Massacre.” He also handed down notable decisions from the federal appeals court bench. But it was as a symbol of the nation’s culture wars that Judge Bork made his name.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/robert-h-bork-conservative-jurist-dies-at-85.html?_r=0

 

[jillian]

Robert Bork, whose unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination made him a hero to conservatives and a touchstone in the culture wars over abortion and civil rights, died Wednesday. He was 85.

Bork's son and namesake told the Associated Press that his father died of complications from heart ailments at a hospital in Arlington, Va.

As a legal scholar and jurist, Bork was an advocate of "originalism" -- the principle that judges should interpret the Constitution the way its framers had intended. While that endeared him to conservatives, Bork's writings and statements that expressed his ideology was what led to such fierce scrutiny when he was tapped for the high court.

Former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork dies

 

[The Infidel]

well, i can't keep you from waxing poetic. i try to keep this type of thread civil. but if you start politicizing it, people, myself included, will respond appropriately.

and then it will go from being a thread about 'very sad' the man has passed away... to a discussion about the politics of it...

and that won't end well.

but it's up to you.

Pffft.... What a joke!

You know you posted it so you appear to be tolerant of the man.

You fuckers hated the man, and you are hoping someone politicizes this thread.

You FAKE touchy feely libs make me sick!

stop acting like a moron, dear.

i didn't hate him.

i disagreed with him.

there's a big difference, which i do understand the radical right has trouble with.

Whatever "Hon"....

 

[jillian]

Washington (CNN) -- Former federal judge and conservative legal scholar Robert Bork died early Wednesday at his home in Virginia, his family confirmed to CNN.

Bork, who was 85, was best known for being nominated to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, only to be rejected for the post after a contentious confirmation battle led by left-leaning groups who opposed his conservative judicial philosophies.

Bork had recently served as a senior legal adviser to Republican Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. He was a solicitor general during the Nixon administration and first gained notoriety for acceding to the president's order to fire the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal in 1973, an episode known as the "Saturday Night Massacre."

But it was the Senate's rejection of his high court nomination that earned the conservative Bork a political legacy -- symbolic of the contentious, partisan nature of congressional confirmations.

Robert Bork dies, known for contentious Supreme Court nomination - CNN.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. With great sadness I note the passing of jurist and intellectual giant, "Robert H. Bork, a former solicitor general, federal judge and conservative legal theorist whose 1987 nomination to the United States Supreme Court was rejected by the Senate in a historic political battle whose impact is still being felt, died on Wednesday in Arlington, Va. He was 85." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/robert-h-bork-conservative-jurist-dies-at-85.html?_r=0

a. I highly recommend his book, "Slouching Toward Gomorrah," to any who wish a deeper understanding of the times and the issues.




2. "Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, explains that the “problem for constitutional law has always been the solution of the Madisonian dilemma, that neither the majority nor the minority can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty.”

3. Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.

4. Next, Bork deals with the idea that reliance on one’s moral philosophy or natural law would solve the dilemma…but, Bork says, “ Not only is moral philosophy wholly inadequate to the task, but there is no reason for the rest of us, who have our own moral visions, to by governed by the judge’s moral predilections.

5. Again, there is no reason to believe that judges would be any better at discerning moral philosophy than are citizens or legislators.

6. Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect.

7. . And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”
From "Originalism," by Steven G. Calabresi, professor of law at Northwestern University School of Law and a visiting professor at Brown University.





8. It is the great shame of the Left-wing politicians who denied Judge Bork his seat on the Supreme Court, but endorsed those of lesser ability and values.

a. Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut? « The Daley Gator




Perhaps there is another place where Judge Bork will find justice.

Rest in Peace.

 

[Truthmatters]

my condolences to his family

 

[George Costanza]

1. With great sadness I note the passing of jurist and intellectual giant, "Robert H. Bork, a former solicitor general, federal judge and conservative legal theorist whose 1987 nomination to the United States Supreme Court was rejected by the Senate in a historic political battle whose impact is still being felt, died on Wednesday in Arlington, Va. He was 85." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/robert-h-bork-conservative-jurist-dies-at-85.html?_r=0

a. I highly recommend his book, "Slouching Toward Gomorrah," to any who wish a deeper understanding of the times and the issues.




2. "Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, explains that the “problem for constitutional law has always been the solution of the Madisonian dilemma, that neither the majority nor the minority can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty.”

3. Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.

4. Next, Bork deals with the idea that reliance on one’s moral philosophy or natural law would solve the dilemma…but, Bork says, “ Not only is moral philosophy wholly inadequate to the task, but there is no reason for the rest of us, who have our own moral visions, to by governed by the judge’s moral predilections.

5. Again, there is no reason to believe that judges would be any better at discerning moral philosophy than are citizens or legislators.

6. Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect.

7. . And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”
From "Originalism," by Steven G. Calabresi, professor of law at Northwestern University School of Law and a visiting professor at Brown University.





8. It is the great shame of the Left-wing politicians who denied Judge Bork his seat on the Supreme Court, but endorsed those of lesser ability and values.

a. Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut? « The Daley Gator




Perhaps there is another place where Judge Bork will find justice.

Rest in Peace.

Just as it would be inappropriate for myself (or anyone) to utilize the passing of Judge Bork as an opportunity to criticize his political views, so is it also inappropriate to use his passing for the purpose of criticizing his political opponents. No one can criticize Judge Bork's intellectual ability.

"Any man's death dimishes me, because I am involved in mankind." John Donne, Meditations. My condolences to his family.

 

[Trajan]

1. With great sadness I note the passing of jurist and intellectual giant, "Robert H. Bork, a former solicitor general, federal judge and conservative legal theorist whose 1987 nomination to the United States Supreme Court was rejected by the Senate in a historic political battle whose impact is still being felt, died on Wednesday in Arlington, Va. He was 85." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/robert-h-bork-conservative-jurist-dies-at-85.html?_r=0

a. I highly recommend his book, "Slouching Toward Gomorrah," to any who wish a deeper understanding of the times and the issues.




2. "Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, explains that the “problem for constitutional law has always been the solution of the Madisonian dilemma, that neither the majority nor the minority can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty.”

3. Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.

4. Next, Bork deals with the idea that reliance on one’s moral philosophy or natural law would solve the dilemma…but, Bork says, “ Not only is moral philosophy wholly inadequate to the task, but there is no reason for the rest of us, who have our own moral visions, to by governed by the judge’s moral predilections.

5. Again, there is no reason to believe that judges would be any better at discerning moral philosophy than are citizens or legislators.

6. Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect.

7. . And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”
From "Originalism," by Steven G. Calabresi, professor of law at Northwestern University School of Law and a visiting professor at Brown University.





8. It is the great shame of the Left-wing politicians who denied Judge Bork his seat on the Supreme Court, but endorsed those of lesser ability and values.

a. Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut? « The Daley Gator




Perhaps there is another place where Judge Bork will find justice.

Rest in Peace.

The NY Times actually does a pretty good job with his obit, Wapo not so much.

In any event, RIP.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. With great sadness I note the passing of jurist and intellectual giant, "Robert H. Bork, a former solicitor general, federal judge and conservative legal theorist whose 1987 nomination to the United States Supreme Court was rejected by the Senate in a historic political battle whose impact is still being felt, died on Wednesday in Arlington, Va. He was 85." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/robert-h-bork-conservative-jurist-dies-at-85.html?_r=0

a. I highly recommend his book, "Slouching Toward Gomorrah," to any who wish a deeper understanding of the times and the issues.




2. "Judge Robert Bork, the intellectual godfather of originalism, explains that the “problem for constitutional law has always been the solution of the Madisonian dilemma, that neither the majority nor the minority can be trusted to define the proper spheres of democratic authority and individual liberty.”

3. Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.

4. Next, Bork deals with the idea that reliance on one’s moral philosophy or natural law would solve the dilemma…but, Bork says, “ Not only is moral philosophy wholly inadequate to the task, but there is no reason for the rest of us, who have our own moral visions, to by governed by the judge’s moral predilections.

5. Again, there is no reason to believe that judges would be any better at discerning moral philosophy than are citizens or legislators.

6. Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect.

7. . And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”
From "Originalism," by Steven G. Calabresi, professor of law at Northwestern University School of Law and a visiting professor at Brown University.





8. It is the great shame of the Left-wing politicians who denied Judge Bork his seat on the Supreme Court, but endorsed those of lesser ability and values.

a. Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."
If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"
Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut? « The Daley Gator




Perhaps there is another place where Judge Bork will find justice.

Rest in Peace.

Just as it would be inappropriate for myself (or anyone) to utilize the passing of Judge Bork as an opportunity to criticize his political views, so is it also inappropriate to use his passing for the purpose of criticizing his political opponents.

"Any man's death dimishes me, because I am involved in mankind." John Donne, Meditations. My condolences to his family.

Well, then, why don't you take the opportunity to extol Justice Kagan's view that government should go ahead and shut down any speech with which it disagrees?



BTW....it's clear that you are doing exactly what you claim it inappropriate to do.
Might as well stop hiding behind sophistry....
...if you have the nerve.

 

[George Costanza]

BTW....it's clear that you are doing exactly what you claim it inappropriate to do.

Might as well stop hiding behind sophistry....
...if you have the nerve.

Wrong again. I am not criticizing anyone here except YOU for utilizing the opportunity of Judge Bork's death to post yet more right wing BS on an Internet message board. Absolutely nothing inappropriate about that. Now shut the fuck up, and let others post their thoughts on Judge Bork's passing.

 

[jillian]

i already did a thread on this pc.

 

[PoliticalChic]

i already did a thread on this pc.

Yes...tracked it down.

But, you and I had different reasons for our threads...as you said when someone commented on one of the finest books of on the changes in society, "Slouching Toward Gomorrah."

You wrote:
"no. he said what you wanted to hear. but that's not what this thread is for."


My thread, discussing his views is exactly what I'd like.....

Look how it got under Georgie's skin already.


I value Bork's views and his support for the Constitution.

 

[jillian]

i already did a thread on this pc.

Yes...tracked it down.

But, you and I had different reasons for our threads...as you said when someone commented on one of the finest books of on the changes in society, "Slouching Toward Gomorrah."

You wrote:
"no. he said what you wanted to hear. but that's not what this thread is for."


My thread, discussing his views is exactly what I'd like.....

Look how it got under Georgie's skin already.


I value Bork's views and his support for the Constitution.

since when do 'different reasons' matter?

the only thing that seems to have raised george's eyebrows is the hack nature of your thread.

carry on

 

[PoliticalChic]

i already did a thread on this pc.

Yes...tracked it down.

But, you and I had different reasons for our threads...as you said when someone commented on one of the finest books of on the changes in society, "Slouching Toward Gomorrah."

You wrote:
"no. he said what you wanted to hear. but that's not what this thread is for."


My thread, discussing his views is exactly what I'd like.....

Look how it got under Georgie's skin already.


I value Bork's views and his support for the Constitution.

since when do 'different reasons' matter?

the only thing that seems to have raised george's eyebrows is the hack nature of your thread.

carry on

When one uses the phrase " the hack nature" it means that they haven't the ability to respond in a cogent manner.
It means you disagree....but can't explain why in a convincing post.



Do you think that I am the only one who sees that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

BTW....it's clear that you are doing exactly what you claim it inappropriate to do.

Might as well stop hiding behind sophistry....
...if you have the nerve.

Wrong again. I am not criticizing anyone here except YOU for utilizing the opportunity of Judge Bork's death to post yet more right wing BS on an Internet message board. Absolutely nothing inappropriate about that. Now shut the fuck up, and let others post their thoughts on Judge Bork's passing.

As soon as one stoops to the Voluntary Tourette's it reveals the rectitude of my post.

BTW.....nothing re-establishes a Leftist's creds better than demands that alternative views be silenced...e.g., "Now shut the f___ up,"

Sure doesn't raise you about the level of any other uneducated thug, does it.

 

[konradv]

Since this thread has become about poltics and not just recognizing the passing of a famous political and legal figure, let's entertain ourselves with a story of a real "Borking".

Saturday Night Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Staidhup]

A sad day for America, the voice in the wilderness of liberal decadence has been silenced.