Bork: 'Brilliant' Roberts the Best Conservatives Will Get

(CNSNews.com) - One-time Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork Tuesday lashed out at the high court and the U.S. Senate for politicizing the judiciary and offered little hope to conservatives hoping to see Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion, overturned.

Bork said the possibility is "virtually nil" that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned in the next 10 years, even with John Roberts presiding as chief justice and a more conservative jurist replacing Sandra Day O'Connor. "I simply do not know if [Roberts] would vote to overturn constitutional mistakes of the past," Bork said.

Bork was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 for a seat on the Supreme Court, but came under heavy political attack from Democrats, especially Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, and was ultimately rejected by the Senate 58 to 42. The campaign to ruin Bork's nomination eventually became a prototype for the political Left, resulting in the judge's name being used as a verb.

A political or judicial nominee who had been "borked" was someone who had been subjected to a scathing attack by special interest groups and many in the establishment media. Tuesday, Bork joked about having his own verb. "I don't mind it," he said. "It's a kind of immortality."

But Bork was less understanding when it came to analyzing the behavior of the Supreme Court. The high court, Bork said, "has made itself the most important branch of government. Today's hearings are political circuses and there may be no going back," he told his audience at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

Roberts, President Bush's choice to replace the late William Rehnquist as chief justice of the Supreme Court, is well prepared for the post, Bork said. While praising Roberts for his "brilliant mind," Bork said he has "never heard [Roberts] say anything about judicial philosophy."

And that silence about judicial philosophy is the best decision Roberts could have made, Bork said, because it limits the political attacks against him. Bork's own outspoken judicial philosophy gave his political enemies many opportunities with which to attack him in 1987 and helped doom his nomination.

Speaking from that experience, Bork said potential Supreme Court nominees should never write or say anything about the court and never commit their vote on any issue in a Senate hearing.

"Senators now demand that nominees state positions," Bork said, "in an effort to make them state campaign promises." But he said the judicial branch shouldn't be politicized. The only way to fix the problem, he said, is to nominate and confirm judges who "will abide by the Constitutional principles" of the founding fathers.

Bork's political philosophy is characterized as constitutional originalism. He believes the Constitution should be interpreted "according to the principles the founders believed themselves to be enacting," not the way judges think the Constitution should work.

He added that conservatives should be happy with Roberts' nomination, in spite of the fact that the Bush nominee has not stated a position on hot button issues like abortion, affirmative action and homosexual marriage. "If they insist on a nominee who makes a campaign promise to them ... maybe he should not be confirmed," Bork said.

"They're not going to get any better nominees through," he added. However, Bork concluded that it would be "politically attractive" for the president to nominate a woman, possibly a minority, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Roberts was originally nominated to replace O'Connor, but President Bush turned to Roberts for the position of chief justice following Rehnquist's death on Saturday. O'Connor will remain in her position as associate justice until a replacement is confirmed.

Bork suggested two justices from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia -- Judge Raymond Randolph and Judge Douglas Ginsberg. The latter was originally chosen by President Reagan to replace Bork as the nominee to the Supreme Court in 1987, but Ginsberg withdrew himself from consideration when it was revealed that he had used marijuana in the 1960s and 1970s.

"Did Rehnquist and Reagan ever donate their time to assist gay rights activists?"

Yes. As Governor and as President, Reagan helped gays (including one son).

Defending the rights of gays **can** be as important as defending the rights of everyone (presuming we are talking about actual civil rights and not the current PC use of "rights" as entitlements or special privileges).

"We're going to likely end up two maybes to replace one of the three conservative members of the court and moderate liberal. That quite possibly will result in the court moving to the left or, at best, remaining the same."

Rubbish. Judge Roberts is far more conservative than Justice O'Conner. That moves the Court to the Right.

Judges Owen, Brown, Estrada, and Pryor are as conservative as Chief Justice Rehnquist, as are several others (e.g. SG Olsen, etc.).

CJ Rehnquist considered Judge Roberts to be one of his own, so Judge Roberts for CJ Rehnquist keeps the Court even...all that needs to happen to move the Court to the Right is for O'Connor's new replacement to be less than a 1970's liberal feminist. I've named several above who all qualify.

Easily.

The inevitable "fight" was and is going to take place on the 2nd nomination anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

Agreed. But being able to spin the 2nd nominee as a Rehnquist replacement paves the way for an easy confirmation for a conservative. Having GOPers being able to go out and say this is just a conservative for a conservative is a huge plus and it kills the Democrat arguement that this is going to change the balance of the court. The GOP will simply be able to say it does not, it is a conservative for a conservative.

Dread List: Joy Clement (Landrieu Pal)

She may not be all that bad. After all, Scalia is a good friend of Ginsburg, and there's scant evidence that that personal friendship has influenced his voting.

Did Rehnquist and Reagan every donate their time to assist gay rights activists?

Roberts simply was helping out colleagues in his office just like they would help Roberts out in preparing for a big case.

There is no proof that Roberts would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Many think he would consider it settled law.

Roberts has also been quoted as saying, "settled law depends to a degree on the bench on which you sit". As a circuit court judge, a Supreme Court ruling is settled law. Roberts is a devote Catholic whose wife is a pro-life activists. Outside of helping friends in a few cases, Roberts career has been devoted to conservative causes. To suggest he is just some liberal in hiding is a preposterous claim.

You have no idea whether Roberts will be as conservative as Rehnquist. No one can know.

No one is absolutely certain the sun will rise tomorrow either, but I am as confident in the sun rising as I am in Robert being a staunch conservative.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I see your point but knew all along the 2nd nominee would be the blood bath. At least with Bush nominating Roberts for Chief Justice, more hearings are prevented, sparing us from ad nauseum bloviating from the Dems. Since Roberts is more or less a "shoe-in", I'd much rather see the GOP and the President rally around ONE conservative and fight to the death over him/her, if need be.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Yes. It may seem like a nit. But in the battle of public opinion, being able to spin an arguement a certain way can make a huge difference, eventhough the reality isn't any different. I really hope it doesn't matter.

No, Roberts did NOT "donate his time to gay activists." He spent several hours, as head of the Appellate Division of his law firm, talking to an associate lawyer in his firm who had the Colorado referendum case, which is a far cry from the Massachusetts homosexual marriage case.

Furthermore, Roberts may (I haven't seen confirmation of this) have played the role of Justice Scalia in a mock Supreme Court session on that case. Either talking with a subordinate or playing Scalia would not constitute helping gay activists.

And it seems like you are unaware of Chief Justice Rehnquist's position in the last case when Roe v. Wade was reconsidered. If you were, you would know to a certainty that Roberts will be equal to, or better than, Rehnquist on this precise subject.

As Mark Twain said, your reluctance about Roberts indicates that "you are getting drunk on the smell of someone else's cork."

John / Billybob

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.