Posted on 09/25/2018 9:05:59 PM PDT by mdittmar
From the NewsHour's video vault, watch Judy Woodruff's 1987 report on the failed Supreme Court confirmation of President Ronald Reagan appointee Judge Robert Bork. The Senate rejected Bork's nomination by a 58-42 vote on October 23, 1987.
Screw the demonic cats fromhell
Take it to them on full auto
Watch them run like the cowards they are
Kennedyism
I didn't know it at the time but Bork - smart as he was - did not believe the second amendment protected an individual’s right to keep and bear arms.
We dodged a bullet, so to speak, when he was defeated.
Personally, I thought Bork was a weirdo.
His “intellectual feast” answer was creepy. As if the Supreme Court was some kind of graduate school seminar.
I wasn’t sad to see him get the hook.
James McClure knew what was going on in the Senate 31 years ago.
“James McClure knew what was going on in the Senate 31 years ago.”
I don’t understand the significance of your comment. I’m not disputing it; just don’t understand it.
Up until 1987 I'd thought of polls as being scientific, non-biased, etc.
But a few days after "Bork" went from being a proper noun to being a verb, the WSJ editorial page published an expose of the MSM poll that came out the week before and which trumpeted that a large majority of Americans opposed Bork's confirmation.
Furthermore, this poll gave cover to a lot of Lib Senators to vote down Bork while claiming, "I'm doing this for the people of America. They have spoken. It's what they clearly want. Look at this poll!"
But the WSJ went and dredged up the hoary details of the poll, something nobody else did. All other outlets just published the Yes/No question at the end of the poll, plus mostly-irrelevant details as to how many people were polled, the statistical confidence level, etc.
But what the WSJ editorial-page article did was to show the "preamble" that led up to the actual question, and that's what opened my eyes.
The preamble mentioned every nasty unsupported thing the Dems had been spewing about Bork, that they somehow managed to grotesquely twist out of selections from his decades of voluminous writings on all things political, even back to things he'd said/written in his 20's.
So the preamble finally ended with something like, "Given the sheer volume of all this evidence we've just told you about, that his written opinions have been characterized by many legal scholars and other experts as racist, sexist, elitist, hate-filled ramblings, and that many of these people feel he will strive to limit if not completely revoke the voting rights of women and racial minorities, throw widows & orphans out on the street, make Medicare & Social Security illegal, .... etc etc etc: Do you support Robert Bork being confirmed to the Supreme Court?"
And of course, the MSM only reported the last 11 words of that, and suppressed the rest. And of course, the text of the nasty, twisted preamble had its desired effect on the poll's results.
I have never again trusted another MSM poll after reading the WSJ editorial that day.
Plenty of NO votes came from the deep South.
Same members then voted YES on Judge Kennedy
One of the most highly qualified, most insightful, best educated, most brilliant jurists ever nominated.
He was thoroughly trashed by corrupt, dishonest, posturing, politically motivated democrats.
The whole thing was disgusting and left a bad taste that lingers to this day.
Former U.S. senator from Idaho.
“Former U.S. senator from Idaho.”
I guess my question was, did the Senator from Idaho know of Robert Bork’s apparent belief that the second amendment did not provide an individual right to keep and bear arms?
At the time Bork was denied a seat on the Supreme Court I did not know that.
https://www.lawliberty.org/2017/10/23/robert-borks-second-amendment/
If this was 1987 the Kavanaugh nomination would already be dead.
Thank God for the end of the three-channel universe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.