ROBERT BORK CALLS MIERS NOMINATION "A DISASTER"

Tucker Carlson ^ | October 5, 2005 | Press Release

[Sam Hill]

ROBERT BORK CALLS THE HARRIET MIERS NOMINATION "A DISASTER" ON TONIGHT'S "THE SITUATION WITH TUCKER CARLSON"

SECAUCUS, NJ - October 7, 2005 - Tonight on MSNBC's "The Situation with Tucker Carlson," former judge and Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork tells Tucker Carlson the Harriet Miers' nomination is "a disaster on every level," that Miers has "no experience with constitutional law whatever" and that the nomination is a "slap in the face" to conservatives.

Following is a transcript of the conversation, which will telecast tonight at 11 p.m. (ET). A full transcript of the show will be available later tonight at www.tv.msnbc.com. "The Situation with Tucker Carlson" telecasts Monday through Friday at 11 p.m. (ET).

[AndyJackson]

For all the bushbots railing about "snobbery" and "elitism"

Besides, what is more elite than being inside the WH, being head of a large law firm, and being a croney of the President. The latter is an exclusive club that no one can join merely through life-long achievement and personal merit. Miers is the ultimate elitist.

[Rokke]

"Do you remember stuff from your first year in college ?"

I fly airplanes for a living. Although I couldn't tell you much about the first aircraft I soloed in 17 years ago, I can talk for hours about the fundamental rules of aerodynamics, how wings generate lift, and the difference between thrust and drag. That is because despite the fact that I now specialize in flying some of the most advanced aircraft on the planet, the foundation of what I do has not changed. And I could not do what I do without an expert knowledge of that foundation.

[AndyJackson]

Is it possible to practice law in America without a firm knowledge of the source of that law?

Yes, just as it is possible to practice most other fields on a day to day basis without a current command of the original foundations. Besides, constitutional scholarship is not really a foundation of legal practice, most of which is derived from English Common Law Practice ammended by statute passed by state legislatures. Most practice avoids constitutional issues altogether.

[AndyJackson]

I can talk for hours about the fundamental rules of aerodynamics, how wings generate lift

As there is a lot that is not know about this subject and details of turbulence theory and how it affects aerodynamic performance is still a subject of advanced on-going research, much of what you think you know about this subject is probably wrong. You know enough to fly an airplane, but not enough to redisgn a modern aircraft using a critical wing.

[Rokke]

"You are the one who began the..."

First, I didn't begin this stupid argument. I was just the first to point out how stupid it was. Second, if the only way you can support your contention is to assume "undecided" voters are "clearly against" something, then you are probably doing enough work to prove how stupid the argument is without my help. Enjoy yourself.

[Sam the Sham]

Yes, precisely.

Practicing lawyers never get into THE BIG PICTURE questions. The Supreme Court is precisely where those THE BIG PICTURE issues are argued and they depend upon a solid grounding in centuries of law.

Rokke, you can fly a plane. But can you design one ? That is what a judge does as opposed to a lawyer. Can you create THE BIG PICTURE ?

[Rokke]

"much of what you think you know about this subject is probably wrong."

As I currently fly aircraft as diverse as the MD-11 and the F-16, your assumptions about my knowledge of the finer points of aerodynamic theory are probably about as accurate as your assumptions about the conservative mindset of Harriet Miers. But prattle on.

[Rokke]

"Rokke, you can fly a plane. But can you design one ? That is what a judge does as opposed to a lawyer. Can you create THE BIG PICTURE ?"

So I take it you believe the Constitution should be rewritten. Sigh. No wonder I don't understand people who don't like Miers.

[Sam the Sham]

Every decision that is made rewrites the Constitution to some extent because it is dealing with a question the framers did not anticipate.

The constitution was never meant to be the final word. It is a set of basic principles that provide the foundation of American law. Just as church tradition/Talmudic interpretation expands upon scripture, so legal precedent expands upon the constitution in response to changing situations.

[AMERIKA]

To get the record straight...

Bork was a circuit judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1982 to 1988, and was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to the Supreme Court in 1987.

A hotly contested Senate debate over his nomination then ensued, partly fueled by strong opposition by civil and women's rights groups concerned with what they claimed was Bork's desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts.

Two dramatic events of the Senate debate were Senator Edward Kennedy's speech opposing Bork's nomination and the disclosure of Bork's video rental history.

Within an hour of Bork's nomination to the Court, Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of it. "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution," said Kennedy. Kennedy's speech fueled widespread public skepticism of Bork's nomination. Others, including Bork himself, found the speech an egregious misrepresentation of his views.

During debate over his nomination, Bork's video rental history was leaked to the press, which led to the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 being enacted. His video rental history included A Day at the Races, Ruthless People and The Man Who Knew Too Much.

To pro-choice rights groups, Bork's originalist views and his belief that the Constitution does not contain a "right to privacy" were viewed as a clear signal that, should he become a Justice on the Supreme Court, he would vote to reverse the Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade.

Accordingly, a large number of womens' groups mobilized to press for Bork's rejection, and the resulting 1987 Senate confirmation hearings became an intensely ideological battle. On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected Bork's confirmation by a 58-42 vote. The vacant seat on the court to which Bork was nominated eventually went to Justice Anthony Kennedy.

The history of Bork's disputed nomination is still a lightning rod in the contentious debate over the limits of the "Advice and Consent of the Senate" that the U.S. Constitution requires for presidents' judicial nominees.

[loveliberty2]

"Given what the best and the brightest lawyers have done to the Constitution of the United States in the past 65 years, I'd have to think long and hard about that one if the brain surgeons had laid waste to a number of brains in the same manner the geniuses have laid waste to the constitution."

Kudos to you!

This is absolutely the most apt observation anyone has made during the week following the Miers nomination!

There are American citizens who have never been to law school, but who have devoted themselves to a study of:

- the writings of America's Founders;

- the debates of the Constitutional Convention and in the States;

- THE FEDERALIST;

- the newspapers and sermons of the period in which the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were framed;

- the wisdom literature of the ages and the writings which influenced the Founders' understanding;

- histories of civilizations preceding ours;

- opinions and decisions handed down by the Court since its inception.

Some of you may be familiar with some of those citizens who have loved the ideas of liberty enough to immerse themselves in a study of those ideas, not because they had to, but because they wanted to.

If you are, then you know that they, if named to the Supreme Court, would bring a level of understanding and devotion that would exceed that of most lawyers and judges alive today, simply because most law schools have not required such intense study of the ideas and principles underlying our liberty.

None of them would meet the standards being cited by the "talking heads" who have come out of the woodwork on this one, however.

[AndyJackson]

What part of "undecided" shows clear opposition?

You are focused on the wrong word. The word I am arguing is not "opposition" but "fractured." The case for this nominee is certainly fractured, some being opposed, some supportive and a large fraction undecided. It is not like Roberts where the support was not fractured, a very clear majority being solidly behind him. If, in the hypothetical (you do know what a hypothetical is) it transpired that an overwhelming percentage of "conservatives" were opposed, then conservatives would no longer be "fractured." Today, however, right now, conservatives are very clearly "fractured." It is not a characterization, but a statistical statement of fact.

[NittanyLion]

Calling the President weak is hurting the troops. Doubt it?

I'm not calling him weak. However, his actions WRT this nomination show him to be coming from a position of weakness. If he doesn't want to be perceived as weak he shouldn't make decisions that result in the appearance of it.

[AndyJackson]

here are American citizens who have never been to law school, but who have devoted themselves to a study of: - the writings of America's Founders; - the debates of the Constitutional Convention and in the States; - THE FEDERALIST; - the newspapers and sermons of the period in which the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were framed; - the wisdom literature of the ages and the writings which influenced the Founders' understanding; - histories of civilizations preceding ours; - opinions and decisions handed down by the Court since its inception. Some of you may be familiar with some of those citizens who have loved the ideas of liberty enough to immerse themselves in a study of those ideas, not because they had to, but because they wanted to. If you are, then you know that they, if named to the Supreme Court, would bring a level of understanding and devotion that would exceed that of most lawyers and judges alive today, simply because most law schools have not required such intense study of the ideas and principles underlying our liberty. here are American citizens who have never been to law school, but who have devoted themselves to a study of: - the writings of America's Founders; - the debates of the Constitutional Convention and in the States; - THE FEDERALIST; - the newspapers and sermons of the period in which the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were framed; - the wisdom literature of the ages and the writings which influenced the Founders' understanding; - histories of civilizations preceding ours; - opinions and decisions handed down by the Court since its inception. Some of you may be familiar with some of those citizens who have loved the ideas of liberty enough to immerse themselves in a study of those ideas, not because they had to, but because they wanted to. If you are, then you know that they, if named to the Supreme Court, would bring a level of understanding and devotion that would exceed that of most lawyers and judges alive today, simply because most law schools have not required such intense study of the ideas and principles underlying our liberty.

And many of these folks have written brilliant scholarly treatises, articles for publication, editorials, etc. on this subject. Were such a person to be nominated, I could be, depending upon the circumstances, highly supportive. To the extent that we have a record, however, Ms Miers has done none of this.

[AndyJackson]

your assumptions about my knowledge of the finer points of aerodynamic theory

They are not assumptions. If you had such knowledge you would not make that statements that you do.

[AndyJackson]

I despair of the number of people who know the answer and don't want to be confused by intellectual arguments.

[Sam Hill]

"There are American citizens who have never been to law school, but who have devoted themselves to a study of:

- the writings of America's Founders;

- the debates of the Constitutional Convention and in the States;

- THE FEDERALIST;

- the newspapers and sermons of the period in which the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were framed;

- the wisdom literature of the ages and the writings which influenced the Founders' understanding;

- histories of civilizations preceding ours;

- opinions and decisions handed down by the Court since its inception."

+++++++

Sure there are people like that. What's it got to do with Miers?

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

And on-board with the Ghost of Philip Marlowe.

[Barnacle]

Harriet. Listen, I just wanted to let you know that I know what you’re going through.

Yes Dear. Now calm down. I know those Conservatives can be awfully mean.

Yes, yes don't I know. Just remember, once you get through this process... you’ve got Carte Blanche.

Carte Blanche? Oh, that’s like a credit card with no limit or monthly statements.

Why of course it's accepted at all the finest stores.

[loveliberty2]

Re the comments about Bork and Ginsburg, the following is excerpted from a Clarence Page column in the "St. Louis Post-Dispatch; 6/23/1993:

"Is Ruth Bader Ginsburg another Thurgood Marshall or another Clarence Thomas? That might sound like an oddball question to ask of a woman who ever since her nomination by President Bill Clinton to the Supreme Court has been regarded almost universally as a sweet woman with a level head and no ideological axes to grind.
. . . "A conciliator, she has shown more concern for the mechanics of the law than the big-picture visions that can get you in trouble in the superheated political climate that followed the unsuccessful confirmation hearings of her fellow appellate judge, Robert Bork.
"That makes her a good stealth candidate, in the model of Judge David Souter, the George Bush nominee whose lack of obvious beliefs on hot-button issues such as abortion or affirmative action enabled him to slip under the Democrat-dominated Senate Judiciary Committee's radar screen. Conservatives from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, to now-retired Bork have called her the best they're going to get out of a Democratic president."