Bork is a pompous, bitter has-been. Had he had the wisdom to answer the Senate's questions in the same fashion as Roberts or even Ginsberg he'd have been on the court for the last 20 years. But no, he had to arrogantly try to prove he was the smartest guy in the room and sunk his own nomination.
"Bork is a pompous, bitter has-been. Had he had the wisdom to answer the Senate's questions in the same fashion as Roberts or even Ginsberg he'd have been on the court for the last 20 years. But no, he had to arrogantly try to prove he was the smartest guy in the room and sunk his own nomination."
Yeah, Bork is pompous.
Yes, Roberts was brilliant.
But in fairness, Roberts had the Bork hearings, the Clarence Thomas hearings and recent filibusters to learn from.
Bork is not only arrogant and bitter, he's a funny-looking goofball whose overweaning ambition led him to be the last person to carry water for Nixon when Bork fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox.
I know there are people on here who think the liberals sunk Bork but the truth is America rejected him because he was a skunk, and a funny-looking one at that.
I enjoy knowing that he will just gag thinking about Miers being on the court and not him.
Yours and others' instant rebutting of someone's point of view by calling them pompous, has-beens, bitter, on and on and on is really getting on my nerves. That is a liberal tactic: if you can't refute their points, call them names.
I dub thee FRINO.....Freeper In Name Only!!!!
Make a point, disagree, but quit the personal attacks.
I remember listening to the Bork hearings and I have to disagree strongly with your perception of them. What I remember is a man who spoke honestly and forthrightly about his opinions, not some stuck-up know-it-all. I'd have to say that the Democrat Senators were the ones that came across that way. I was very impressed with Judge Bork's demeanor and intelligence during those hearings. From what I've seen of him lately that hasn't changed, so I have no idea why you choose to describe him as pompous and bitter, unless you simply wish to discredit him because of his opinion on Miers.
If you disagree with him - fine. That's no reason to resort to personal attacks.
Roberts got away with it because he had so scant a paper trail -- much of which could be sloughed off as that of an "employee" of the Reagan administration. Bork had tons of paper trail, in which he was never coy about expressing himself. Even Ginsburg answered questions about stuff she had written.