Law & the Courts

The Corner

Re: Your Rules, Democrats

In response to Not a Fan, Apparently

Kevin — in noting that the Democratic party is now calling for the Republican Senate to follow the “norms” that they themselves have shattered, you write:

The ur-example, of course, is the case of Robert Bork. The Democrats’ craven, despicable, lying campaign against Bork announced the arrival of Supreme Court confirmation hearings as bare-knuckle political brawls. There was no question that Bork was well-qualified for the position – he was one of the great legal minds of his time. Democrats simply did not like his view of the law and the Constitution.

This is exactly right. But I think, if anything, you understate the case. The argument that I have heard since Scalia’s death was announced goes something like this: “If Obama’s nominee is qualified and accomplished, he should be approved. Let’s hear no talk of the ‘balance of the Court’; that is an idea that the Right is now inventing for its own benefit. Besides, many of Obama’s potential nominees have been approved for other positions already; is the Republican Senate really going to suggest that they are unsuitable now?”

Or, as Paul Waldman puts it in a post that fails to mention Bork’s name even once while decrying the mystical changes that have apparently wrecked the process:

The Senate, in all its august wisdom, used to approach nominations to the Supreme Court with a simple standard: If the nominee was qualified and wasn’t a criminal or a drunk, he or she would probably get confirmed with the support of both the president’s party and the opposition.

Really? Because Bork met this standard perfectly. He was a respected academic who had oodles of legal experience. He had been unanimously approved by the Senate as both Solicitor General (in 1973), and as a circuit judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (in 1982, by voice vote). And he had been suggested as a potential Supreme Court justice since the early 1970s. And yet . . .

Even worse, the Democratic Senate killed his appointment with precisely the same reasoning that is now held to be beyond the pale. Bork, the Democratic majority argued, was politically unacceptable. Moreover, it was submitted that to replace Justice Powell with a judge whose philosophy differed so starkly would be to upset the Court’s delicate balance.

Give me a break. 

My view, which I’m happy to share, is that the Senate has a responsibility to make sure that only suitable judges are elected to the Supreme Court, and if one is not an originalist one is not a suitable judge. That position may make me unpopular — and it’ll certainly make me unhappy; let’s face it, I’m not going to get my way very often — but there it is.

Now, I am happy to be told that I am a monomaniac or that I am a fool or that politics doesn’t work like that, and I’m happy to suffer any slings and arrows that are thrown my way in consequence. But I am not going to sit here and watch in silence as history is rewritten. The Bork case is utterly devastating to the idea that objecting to a nominee on the basis of his philosophy is outré. Conservatives should make sure to bring it up over and over and over again.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More