Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Uh yeah. That's why there is a negative term now known in politics as as being "borked"--because it was such a fair process. You should google it. See what happened. It was about delay, delay, delay during Reagan's remaining months as President. It happens. It's Washington DC after all. Few actions though get their own term.
No, the term "bork" is now a negative phrase because there are so many people in America who are too stupid and too uninformed to get it through their heads that Robert Bork was a cancer on the judiciary system and would have been a catastrophe as a Supreme Court justice. The man actually advocated 19th-century Jim Crow laws such as poll taxes and literacy tests to vote. In other words, he felt it was constitutional to make people pay for the right to vote, and to make them prove they could read before they were eligible to cast a ballot.
So go on, Republicans - keep defending the man, and his concept of what America should be like. Every time you do, you demonstrate what a fascist, anti-American vision your party has of the country and the Constitution.
Oh - and before you conservatives start cackling about what a good idea literacy tests would be, be careful what you wish for. If literacy test ever become legal, what's to stop a Democratic administration and legislature from making history tests mandatory, or make voters answers a series of questions on the Constitution? If that ever happens, no Republican would ever win public office again, because 90% of their political base would never be allowed to vote.
Yeah, he's so out of touch with American values that he was elected in a landslide and re-elected four years later.
Only because he is surrounded by a cloud of deception and the gullible, brain dead and ignorant joined with the lefties. He's as anti-American as Fidel Castro and anyone with one iota of intelligence knows it.
Only because he is surrounded by a cloud of deception and the gullible, brain dead and ignorant joined with the lefties. He's as anti-American as Fidel Castro and anyone with one iota of intelligence knows it.
Sure thing, buddy. Just keep telling yourself that. Hope you enjoy eight years of President Clinton.
I will, once again, post the definition of "borked." Whether or not Bork was good enough is not included in the definition.
"past tense: borked; past participle: borked; past tense: Borked; past participle: Borked
obstruct (someone, especially a candidate for public office) through systematic defamation or vilification.
"is fear of borking scaring people from public office?"
Notice the words, "systematic defamation or vilification." That's being "borked." You can thrash around being upset all you want. It's what happened, so deal with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert_The_Crocodile
No, the term "bork" is now a negative phrase because there are so many people in America who are too stupid and too uninformed to get it through their heads that Robert Bork was a cancer on the judiciary system and would have been a catastrophe as a Supreme Court justice. The man actually advocated 19th-century Jim Crow laws such as poll taxes and literacy tests to vote. In other words, he felt it was constitutional to make people pay for the right to vote, and to make them prove they could read before they were eligible to cast a ballot.
So go on, Republicans - keep defending the man, and his concept of what America should be like. Every time you do, you demonstrate what a fascist, anti-American vision your party has of the country and the Constitution.
Oh - and before you conservatives start cackling about what a good idea literacy tests would be, be careful what you wish for. If literacy test ever become legal, what's to stop a Democratic administration and legislature from making history tests mandatory, or make voters answers a series of questions on the Constitution? If that ever happens, no Republican would ever win public office again, because 90% of their political base would never be allowed to vote.
I will, once again, post the definition of "borked." Whether or not Bork was good enough is not included in the definition.
"past tense: borked; past participle: borked; past tense: Borked; past participle: Borked
obstruct (someone, especially a candidate for public office) through systematic defamation or vilification.
"is fear of borking scaring people from public office?"
Notice the words, "systematic defamation or vilification." That's being "borked." You can thrash around being upset all you want. It's what happened, so deal with it.
Did you completely ignore everything I said, or did it simply sail a mile over your head?
Let's try again. I'll type more slowly this time, and see if that helps.
You said that the term "bork" has become a pejorative because Robert Bork is considered by many people to have been unfairly delayed and obstructed in his nomination process. Here's what you said -
Quote:
Uh yeah. That's why there is a negative term now known in politics as as being "borked"--because it was such a fair process. You should google it. See what happened. It was about delay, delay, delay during Reagan's remaining months as President
I pointed out that this definition you're clinging to is unfounded, because he was not unfairly treated and was in fact appallingly unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court in the 20th Century. The process worked exactly as it should have worked, and he was not treated unfairly at all. Despite your attempt to sidestep away from it now, it's indisputable that the entire basis of your original argument is that he was unfairly treated - but that assertion has no basis in fact, so your argument is wrong. You lose.
Uh yeah. That's why there is a negative term now known in politics as as being "borked"--because it was such a fair process. You should google it. See what happened. It was about delay, delay, delay during Reagan's remaining months as President. It happens. It's Washington DC after all. Few actions though get their own term.
Bork was nominated on July 1, 1987. Congress was on recess for part of the summer; the Judiciary Committee heard Bork's testimony (in which Bork did not do quite well) and yet Bork got his vote on October 6th. I remember the Bork hearings and he came off as arrogant and untruthful. In any case, a three month process isn't delay, delay, delay -- when it took the Republican Senate 87 days to confirm Elena Kagan, with no summer recess.
As Albert_The_Crocodile pointed out, Bork was particularly unqualified.
Not really happy with the choices for candidates, I'll never vote for a liberal progressive like Klinton or Sanders especially to their anti 2nd amendment stance.
But I'm not fond of republican choices either. However my vote now will be geared toward the replacement of Scalia rather than a new president and my vote will be toward preventing a liberal anti 2nd amendment judge from getting the job.
I was prepared to sit this next election out but now that is my mission.
Any gun owner, even democrats would be crazy to vote for Hillary because she is as anti-gun as they get.
I pointed out that this definition you're clinging to is unfounded, because he was not unfairly treated and was in fact appallingly unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court in the 20th Century. The process worked exactly as it should have worked, and he was not treated unfairly at all. Despite your attempt to sidestep away from it now, it's indisputable that the entire basis of your original argument is that he was unfairly treated - but that assertion has no basis in fact, so your argument is wrong. You lose.
Did you get it that time?
That other poster wins if you are arguing that Bork was not treated unfairly and was unqualified.
Even some democrats who were glad he didn't get on the scotus admitted years later it was wrong to have savaged him like they did, and it would have future repercussions. The liberals were scared to death of Bork, because he was not only conservative, but very intellectual and persuasive.
You and others may have hated his viewpoint, but he was more than qualified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
As Albert_The_Crocodile pointed out, Bork was particularly unqualified.
Unqualified?
Are you daft?
The guy was a brilliant judge, professor, SG, AG. You don't get more qualified than that.
He was just vilified by the liberal press and liberals in Congress that acted disgraceful in their efforts to demonize the man.
They even went through his families video rental history looking for anything that might be used to smear him.
So you actually planned on voting but simply wanted to make your post seem more exciting by claiming this. Hate to break it to you but if the GOP blocks the nomination for a year you aren't going to get a Scalia replacement that fits his profile. The Dems will block the nominees until the GOP puts up someone moderate to their liking. Honestly, I don't see either party being able to nominate ideologically pure candidates anymore. It's too big of an issue and each party will use their power to ensure that doesn't happen.
Unqualified?
Are you daft?
The guy was a brilliant judge, professor, SG, AG. You don't get more qualified than that.
Really? The man openly stated that he thought poll taxes and literacy tests for voters were Constitutional. In other words, his vision of America was one in which poor people would have to pay for the right to vote for their elected leaders, and pass tests to prove that they were educated to whatever arbitrary standard a local or state government decided to impose.
This is the way Robert Bork would have interpreted the Constitution of The United States had he been appointed to the Supreme Court. I would say you can get quite a bit more qualified than that; in fact, I would argue you could hardly be more unqualified.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
