• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« The Morning Wrap | Main | 'Historic' Day As D.C. Special Ed Class Action Ends »

December 19, 2012



" he never deserved such personal vilification as he got".

It wasn't that bad...During Goodwin Liu's nomination process for 9th Circuit, Senator Grassley compared him to Mao Tse-Tung, a bizarre comparison im still trying to comprehend...No one compared Bork to a dictator or Communist leader...Honestly, Kennedy's speech of him (Bork's America) was pretty much spot on what a Bork confirmation would have meant...

To Cody, i was joking about it being a positive for conservatives about Botk's nomination being defeated..I do find it amusing that HAD he been on the court, he might have been replaced with a Pam Karlan, Caitlin Halligan, Diane Wood, Harold Koh, etc...


Bork is an example of a brilliant and heartfelt lawyer whose ideology often (not always) flirted with the extreme, whose verbal expressions often (far from always) tended to offend, who loved debate, and whose self-confidence and stubbornness could make for a strong Justice yet a controversial candidate for nomination.

In short, he was a highly plausible yet utterly doomed nominee. I'm glad he didn't join the Court, but he never deserved such personal vilification as he got.

Joseph Cody

Ah, the twisted logic of conservatives. Remember that Kennedy, Bork's replacement, has been more liberal than Bork would have ever been, so how his defeat could be regarded as a positive (for conservatives) beats me.

David Van Taylor

Interestingly enough, though the NYTimes obit got a lot of things right, they started with a faulty premise, or at least a misleading statement: "It is rare for the Senate in its constitutional 'advice and consent' role to turn down a president’s Supreme Court nominee ..."

In fact 20-25% of all Supreme Court nominees have been rejected by the Senate, a statistic that has remained roughly steady since the beginning of this republic. "Advice and consent" was a hard-won and meaningful compromise among the Founders; it was never intended to be a rubber-stamp. Something everyone should remember, especially those who, like Bork, want to adhere to "original intent."

Anyone interested in confirmation politics should check out my feature documentary ADVISE & DISSENT. Available on iTunes, Amazon, Netlifx, and YouTube. More info at


Conservatives should look at his Supreme Court nomination defeat as a positive, if Bork WERE on the court, President Obama would be naming his replacement...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad