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.
Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella observed that Bork's "savaging by the left" forever changed the way judges are confirmed, with politics and demographics becoming more important than competence and qualifications.
Sotomayor ruled that New Haven, Conn., could deny firefighters promotions because they passed an exam that no African-American passed. Martella pointed out that the decision was made via summary judgment, with no trial, and asked Bork whether he thinks that was appropriate.
"No I don't," he responded.
"It really was a sign of disrespect to the litigants who were asking for justice. They should have had a full hearing and a reasoned opinion written for them, even if they lost. But they didn't get that."
"It's quite true that the Democrats are willing to engage in furious attacks, often without any basis in fact, and Republicans are not," said Bork, who is a fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank.
Newsmax.com - Robert Bork: Sotomayor Unqualified, Isn't 'Entirely Governed by Law' (http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/bork_sotomayor/2009/07/14/235469.html?s=al&promo_code=8378-1 - broken link)
Exactly why would anyone care what Robert Bork had to say on anything. This is a guy who wanted to be on the SCOTUS but had, among other items, the following beilefs:
He defended poll taxes
He defended literacy tests
He opposed the civil rights laws that ended the "whites only" signs in restaurants
He doesn't think freedom of speech applies to literature, art and music.
Even for his time (1987) he was too far out of the mainstream for Republicans. He got 58 votes against his confirmation.
And of course he helped Richard M. Nixon (R/Hell) try to destroy the Constitution. When everyone above him refused to fire Archibald Cox and resigned on principle, Bork fired him. He was kind of the John Yoo or Alberto Gonzales of his time. In other words, a douchebag.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,087,778 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miborn
Newsmax.TV's Ashley Martella observed that Bork's "savaging by the left" forever changed the way judges are confirmed, with politics and demographics becoming more important than competence and qualifications.
Sotomayor ruled that New Haven, Conn., could deny firefighters promotions because they passed an exam that no African-American passed. Martella pointed out that the decision was made via summary judgment, with no trial, and asked Bork whether he thinks that was appropriate.
"No I don't," he responded.
"It really was a sign of disrespect to the litigants who were asking for justice. They should have had a full hearing and a reasoned opinion written for them, even if they lost. But they didn't get that."
"It's quite true that the Democrats are willing to engage in furious attacks, often without any basis in fact, and Republicans are not," said Bork, who is a fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank.
Newsmax.com - Robert Bork: Sotomayor Unqualified, Isn't 'Entirely Governed by Law' (http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/bork_sotomayor/2009/07/14/235469.html?s=al&promo_code=8378-1 - broken link)
"It's quite true that the Democrats are willing to engage in furious attacks, often without any basis in fact, and Republicans are not," said Bork, who is a fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank
This is funny. The Hudson Institute links to a video of Bork talking with Campbell Brown, not with "TV's Ashley Martella" (is that like "TV's Frank"?). In that interview he said Sotomayor's "remark" shouldnt disqualify her.
and, "How do you think she'll change the Court?" "Not much."
"It's quite true that the Democrats are willing to engage in furious attacks, often without any basis in fact, and Republicans are not," said Bork, who is a fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank
That looks like a furious attack without any basis in fact..............
That looks like a furious attack without any basis in fact..............
oddly, in that Campbell Brown interview she asked him what he would do differently now, if he had his nomination process to do over; he said he wouldnt lose his temper. And that was his advice for Sotomayor: "Stay calm."
oddly, in that Campbell Brown interview she asked him what he would do differently now, if he had his nomination process to do over; he said he wouldnt lose his temper. And that was his advice for Sotomayor: "Stay calm."
Funny if he hadn't lost his temper he would have been on the Supreme Court. He sure does fit the profile of a conservative though. Angry white guy
Funny if he hadn't lost his temper he would have been on the Supreme Court. He sure does fit the profile of a conservative though. Angry white guy
Are you sure are about that angry white man part? Not saying that he is not however he could oh well whatever. Just like Barr of GA. HMM
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.
