Bork's most predominant quality is his favor of strict interpretation of the Constitution, so he never really stood a chance of inhabiting such a visible role in our government. Ever since the civil rights movement, the courts have become increasingly important as a tool for upholding justice and making changes to ensure the latter -- the message is generally "Change for the better," not "Keep things the same." Frankly, Bork's views just don't correspond with modern ideologies of social liberalism, because he doesn't consider changing times to be a call for a shift in government policies. Although his intentions have a sort of nobility, I don't think a figure who chooses to flaunt his most conservative views rather than provide any pretense of middle-of-the-road-ism could ever become a member of the Supreme Court in a liberal republic.
Bork's views seem to be very out of touch with the ways that most people will interpret the constitution. Although occasionally he makes a good point and provides sufficient evidence to back it up, it seems that his other ideologies can never have enough reasoning to ever seem logical. I was confused at first as to whether he was a nutcase or not, and if the political ad at the top was just slander or truth, but i also found this:
so it seems that Bork can defend some of his views and they make sense to me, but in other cases, he can't seem to be able to adjust to the changing view points of today, and although he does mention he says that changing gender roles are okay in the video, he didn't support the Equal Rights Amendment, which seems hypocritical.
It is easy to tell that Bork is disliked by many from the first video. His actions about the poll taz and literacy tax have not earned him supporters. If Supreme Court Judges were elected by the American public, it is quite ovbious Bork would most likely not be elected. Bork reads into the Constitution word for word and is not a fan of change. He believes in following the cases that come before. These beliefs are not modern and Bork fails to see this. I think there is no way Congress would ever allow him to become a Supreme Court judge.
Bork doesn't seem to understand that the consitution is a living document. His interpretation of the constitution is extremly strict. Looking at the nation today and then back in 1776, times have changed. Amendments to the consitution are what modernize our nation. Bork does not seem to understand this at all. Bork is never going to be a supreme court judge...
Bork is clearly informed, which one would hope a Supreme Court hopefull would be, and an excellent speaker, but by the first video seems more suited to have a seat in the pre-Civil War era of the US Supreme Court. However, the video is clearly biased against Bork, showing only his faults, whereas the second video is one of him defending his views with clear explaination. It's hard to judge the validity of the first video because the only constant between the two videos is the issue of one's right to privacy, which Bork takes an ultra conservative route by way of strict constuction. But then Bork seems quite progressive by stating that precedent means very little in constitutional law because of the constant change in society and points out the hypocracy of the Supreme Court rulings. But two sub-four minute videos with complete opposite biases are not enough to gather sufficient evidence to make a complete and fair assessment of Bork.
Although Bork may be correct in the fact that several of today's court cases may not be entirely true to what the Constitution intended I disagree with the initial premise entirely. The Constitution is simply too vague and irrelevant in some cases as to provide a substantial basis for judicial reasoning in all instances. Moreover Bork was highly inconsistent in his judicial philosophy as when faced with civil rights and environmental activists, and consumers he would almost always favor the government. However, when given cases involving business interests against federal institutions he would throw everything out the window and favor business thereby abandoning his purported judicial restraint. In addition Bork viewed his job as a supreme justice as an "intellectual feast,"(September 20, 1987) or an academic's position that was in it just for the fun of it, showing his lack of care towards the lives of millions Americans that he could have affected.
From watching the first video alone, I didn't like many of Bork's ideas, especially about the poll tax and voting. In order to make sure the first video was true I found a link that shows Ted Kennedy's attack on Bork: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNaasFvvFlE
The second video didn't change much about my view of him. However, he made a point that the precedent is less important, and that the Supreme Court needs to be able to fix a bad decision by a previous court if it sees one. I happen to agree with him on that point. an example of not following the precedent (not in the Court though) is the passing of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, even though the precedent before that was pro-slavery. Basically, Bork may have 1 or 2 ideas, but in general, his opposition against women's rights and racial integration was probably what led to him not becoming part of the supreme court.
Upon reading "Whose Constitution Is It, Anyway?" I found that I agreed with many of Bork's opinions. He consistently points out, in the article, the danger in basing court decisions on the basis of foreign nations; his point being that the U.S. constitution should be the grounds, and the only grounds, for national decisions. In this way, he makes a legitimate point, in that world unanimity on social issues is not only completely unnecessary but also a direct contradiction to the Constitution. However, I agree with my peers' in saying that Bork's strict adherence to the constitution, largely disregarding the ninth amendment, therein, greatly limits his appeal to the populace.
Bork's view of how the Constitution is to be interpreted puts him behind times. Him wanting poll tax and literacy tax puts his understand of what is constitutionally acceptable in regards of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment at question. Also, his strong input into cases could prevent him from ever admitting the possibility or the constitutionality of future cases that oppose his views.
According the the Washington Post, "Judge Bork has retained from his academic days an almost frightening detachment from, not to say indifference toward, the real-world consequences of his views . " This could set him back from helping the national progress should he ever be on the Supreme Court today. With his lack of tact for what the people want and the consequences of how he portrays his views of how America should be, Bork could have never stood the chance of a successful appointment as a Supreme Court judge.
Bork is certainly a conservative candidate for Supreme Court judge, but he is not naive enough to believe that change is unnecessary. In the second video, he discusses the importance of recognizing that one's predecessors might have erred from the Constitution, and it is thus a Supreme Court Judge’s obligation to right these wrongs where possible. He is not necessarily acting against the times by this conservative viewpoint, but is simply pointing out a need to adhere to the Constitution which we claim to govern ourselves by. Our society is certainly more liberal than it was at the founding of our nation, but it is not so liberal as to feel disregard to the Constitution, which Bork’s conservatism is working to uphold. However, there is certainly a fine line between reasonably conservative and the extremes of conservatism. I definitely disagree with Bork’s opposition to racial integration and women’s rights, and on these points he is clearly in the minority when it comes to the opinion of the majority of the American public. As far as popularity, it is true that our society’s liberal tendencies would reject a candidate like Bork. It is important, nevertheless, to consider both sides of the argument, and to understand the importance of conservatives to keep the fast paced change in check when it is necessary. Bork, however, most likely will not serve this purpose, simply because of his controversial views on other subjects.
While Bork seems to be intelligent and knowledgeable, his views just don't align with that of a common American. Judging by these two youtube videos, Whose Constitution is it Anyway?, and the video Daniel Chilton posted in his comment, it seems as though Bork is just trying to get himself into the Supreme Court by stating his views are in line with whatever he thinks will earn him recognition.
Bork's main issue is that he refuses to accept that times are changing. Society's natural tendency and goal has always been to progress as a whole in order to better the lives of the people living within it. By suggesting that we should always look back to what was and never to what should be, Bork is implying that he does not believe that forward motion is for the better. The very thought of that idea is simply baffling. If we as a whole refuse to let new things come about in order to improve every day life, then we will become nothing more than a primitive, stagnant society.
Further more, upon reading a comment posted by one of my peers and in reference to the "Whose Constitution Is It Anyway?" article, I would like to address Bork's point about international influence on national issues. While it is a legitimate point to say that a nation should not try citizens of other nations for crimes completely unrelated to the aforementioned nation, it is utter lunacy to state that what the large majority of the world thinks of a country should not even somewhat influence the outcome of court cases dealing with social issues. Do not misjudge my intentions here as extreme, but I wish to convey that what other nations think of a country is actually kind of important. In light of my previous statement about misjudging my intentions, I would like flirt with the extreme side here and point out that ignoring outside views of our own country could quite possibly result in the rest of the world viewing us as we once viewed Nazi Germany and Communist China. Bork believes that our country can do no wrong as long as we adhere to the guidelines set forth by the Constitution. However, the Constitution was meant to address the issues and challenges of a different time; change is necessary every once in a while. I wish to ask this question to Bork and to those who support him: If the world hated us, would you still refute international influence?
Bork clearly has ultraconservative views which the first video highlights. Although the first video clearly biased, it does show that his views are inconsistent with those of modern American society. As Karthik mentioned, Ted Kennedy attacked Bork on national television, making Bork seem extremist in his views. He also had his part in Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre where he complied and agreed with Nixon's unconstitutional decision to fire Archibald Cox which shows his flawed judgement.
An interview of Nominee Bork about his role in the Saturday night Massacrehttp://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/17/us/bork-hearings-nominee-s-recollection-his-watergate-role-solicitor-general.html?pagewanted=1
His ideas are outdated but the first video alone is not sufficient enough to form an opinion on whether he should be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Bork defends his view sufficiently, however. His theory that constitutional precedent has no place in Supreme Court decisions is very modern. Although his stance on abortion is controversial, his point that the Roe v. Wade decision has no legal reasoning behind it is intriguing and tenable.
Like everyone has said, Bork is very conservative and interprets the Constitution very very strictly. However, some of his beleifs are ancient in the now progressive America. For example, he wanted a poll tax and did not believe freedom of speech does not apply to literature, art, and music. In the second video, Bork does defend his views in a believable way. He does defend his point of veiw on abortion well, even though it was controversial.
I agree with what everyone is saying here: Bork is definitely obstinate in his ability to recognize the constitution as a living document. And as Daniel Reader said, I am a little concerned about his motives. However, just to play Devil's Advocate here for a second... What would it be to have someone like Bork on the Supreme Court. Sure, he does not agree with the general population's political views, but do we really want all of the Supreme Court Justices to represent mainstream Amercia? That would result in no representation for people who hold varying, but slightly less popular, views. A Supreme Court made up of only progressive liberals would mean that they would have limited disagreements over rulings. That may sound great but if everyone holds the same views, who is there to keep balance? With a more politically diverse group, there is a higher chance of reaching a well developed conclusion. If you had Justices ranging from extreme progressive left to ultraconservative right, then all sides of the argument are present and the conclusion that would arise would be much stronger than one that came from a group soley comprised of liberals or soley comprised of conservatives. It would give things more balance. Bork may have backwards views in modern day, but he would certainly be a voice to make people reconsider and look at ideas from all angles. Is he the right conservative for the job? Maybe not. But it is certainly interesting to think about the effects of opposite extremes in the Supreme Court.
Although Bork seems to know what he is talking about, I don't really like him. His opposition to women's rights and racial integration is probably one of many reasons why he wasn't chosen to be a part of the Supreme Court. He also has a very different perspective and beliefs than the modern day judges which may have decreased his chances even more of ever becoming a judge.
Bork's views don't seem to be in step with American society right now. His ideas are a bit old, and it seems like he can't accept the fact that America has changed. With American culture changing, his views no longer apply to modern society.
Politicians are becoming increasingly selfish and all about the title, instead of heading campaigns that would benefit the american public. Bork flaunts his conservative views hoping to sway opinion in his favor. His traditional views on strict constructionism is not compatible with modern day americans views. He's fishing for recognition, and is trying too hard for a supreme court bid.
It seems the "Borked" the verb is reflexive. He can blame himself for not being admitted to the supreme court. Perhaps if he sought to act out of constitutional interpretation and not the dissemination of his view, then he would have been granted the courtship. he seems to hold an obstinacy and bluntness that seems unbecoming of the highest rule in the land. He also exhibits an aged and unwelcoming air that, though well learned, gives him the appearance of stubbornness. Bork's case is better said in federalist no. 78, "The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT"
Bork's most predominant quality is his favor of strict interpretation of the Constitution, so he never really stood a chance of inhabiting such a visible role in our government. Ever since the civil rights movement, the courts have become increasingly important as a tool for upholding justice and making changes to ensure the latter -- the message is generally "Change for the better," not "Keep things the same." Frankly, Bork's views just don't correspond with modern ideologies of social liberalism, because he doesn't consider changing times to be a call for a shift in government policies. Although his intentions have a sort of nobility, I don't think a figure who chooses to flaunt his most conservative views rather than provide any pretense of middle-of-the-road-ism could ever become a member of the Supreme Court in a liberal republic.
ReplyDeleteThe guy is a complete hypocrite. http://www.acslaw.org/node/11545
ReplyDeleteBork's views seem to be very out of touch with the ways that most people will interpret the constitution. Although occasionally he makes a good point and provides sufficient evidence to back it up, it seems that his other ideologies can never have enough reasoning to ever seem logical.
ReplyDeleteI was confused at first as to whether he was a nutcase or not, and if the political ad at the top was just slander or truth, but i also found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvFLXFCJvJA&feature=fvst
so it seems that Bork can defend some of his views and they make sense to me, but in other cases, he can't seem to be able to adjust to the changing view points of today, and although he does mention he says that changing gender roles are okay in the video, he didn't support the Equal Rights Amendment, which seems hypocritical.
It is easy to tell that Bork is disliked by many from the first video. His actions about the poll taz and literacy tax have not earned him supporters. If Supreme Court Judges were elected by the American public, it is quite ovbious Bork would most likely not be elected. Bork reads into the Constitution word for word and is not a fan of change. He believes in following the cases that come before. These beliefs are not modern and Bork fails to see this. I think there is no way Congress would ever allow him to become a Supreme Court judge.
ReplyDeleteBork doesn't seem to understand that the consitution is a living document. His interpretation of the constitution is extremly strict. Looking at the nation today and then back in 1776, times have changed. Amendments to the consitution are what modernize our nation. Bork does not seem to understand this at all. Bork is never going to be a supreme court judge...
ReplyDeleteBork is clearly informed, which one would hope a Supreme Court hopefull would be, and an excellent speaker, but by the first video seems more suited to have a seat in the pre-Civil War era of the US Supreme Court. However, the video is clearly biased against Bork, showing only his faults, whereas the second video is one of him defending his views with clear explaination. It's hard to judge the validity of the first video because the only constant between the two videos is the issue of one's right to privacy, which Bork takes an ultra conservative route by way of strict constuction. But then Bork seems quite progressive by stating that precedent means very little in constitutional law because of the constant change in society and points out the hypocracy of the Supreme Court rulings. But two sub-four minute videos with complete opposite biases are not enough to gather sufficient evidence to make a complete and fair assessment of Bork.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Bork may be correct in the fact that several of today's court cases may not be entirely true to what the Constitution intended I disagree with the initial premise entirely. The Constitution is simply too vague and irrelevant in some cases as to provide a substantial basis for judicial reasoning in all instances.
ReplyDeleteMoreover Bork was highly inconsistent in his judicial philosophy as when faced with civil rights and environmental activists, and consumers he would almost always favor the government. However, when given cases involving business interests against federal institutions he would throw everything out the window and favor business thereby abandoning his purported judicial restraint.
In addition Bork viewed his job as a supreme justice as an "intellectual feast,"(September 20, 1987) or an academic's position that was in it just for the fun of it, showing his lack of care towards the lives of millions Americans that he could have affected.
From watching the first video alone, I didn't like many of Bork's ideas, especially about the poll tax and voting. In order to make sure the first video was true I found a link that shows Ted Kennedy's attack on Bork:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNaasFvvFlE
The second video didn't change much about my view of him. However, he made a point that the precedent is less important, and that the Supreme Court needs to be able to fix a bad decision by a previous court if it sees one. I happen to agree with him on that point. an example of not following the precedent (not in the Court though) is the passing of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, even though the precedent before that was pro-slavery. Basically, Bork may have 1 or 2 ideas, but in general, his opposition against women's rights and racial integration was probably what led to him not becoming part of the supreme court.
Upon reading "Whose Constitution Is It, Anyway?" I found that I agreed with many of Bork's opinions. He consistently points out, in the article, the danger in basing court decisions on the basis of foreign nations; his point being that the U.S. constitution should be the grounds, and the only grounds, for national decisions. In this way, he makes a legitimate point, in that world unanimity on social issues is not only completely unnecessary but also a direct contradiction to the Constitution. However, I agree with my peers' in saying that Bork's strict adherence to the constitution, largely disregarding the ninth amendment, therein, greatly limits his appeal to the populace.
ReplyDeleteBork's view of how the Constitution is to be interpreted puts him behind times. Him wanting poll tax and literacy tax puts his understand of what is constitutionally acceptable in regards of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment at question. Also, his strong input into cases could prevent him from ever admitting the possibility or the constitutionality of future cases that oppose his views.
ReplyDeleteAccording the the Washington Post, "Judge Bork has retained from his academic days an almost frightening detachment from, not to say indifference toward, the real-world consequences of his views . " This could set him back from helping the national progress should he ever be on the Supreme Court today. With his lack of tact for what the people want and the consequences of how he portrays his views of how America should be, Bork could have never stood the chance of a successful appointment as a Supreme Court judge.
Bork is certainly a conservative candidate for Supreme Court judge, but he is not naive enough to believe that change is unnecessary. In the second video, he discusses the importance of recognizing that one's predecessors might have erred from the Constitution, and it is thus a Supreme Court Judge’s obligation to right these wrongs where possible. He is not necessarily acting against the times by this conservative viewpoint, but is simply pointing out a need to adhere to the Constitution which we claim to govern ourselves by. Our society is certainly more liberal than it was at the founding of our nation, but it is not so liberal as to feel disregard to the Constitution, which Bork’s conservatism is working to uphold. However, there is certainly a fine line between reasonably conservative and the extremes of conservatism. I definitely disagree with Bork’s opposition to racial integration and women’s rights, and on these points he is clearly in the minority when it comes to the opinion of the majority of the American public. As far as popularity, it is true that our society’s liberal tendencies would reject a candidate like Bork. It is important, nevertheless, to consider both sides of the argument, and to understand the importance of conservatives to keep the fast paced change in check when it is necessary. Bork, however, most likely will not serve this purpose, simply because of his controversial views on other subjects.
ReplyDeleteWhile Bork seems to be intelligent and knowledgeable, his views just don't align with that of a common American. Judging by these two youtube videos, Whose Constitution is it Anyway?, and the video Daniel Chilton posted in his comment, it seems as though Bork is just trying to get himself into the Supreme Court by stating his views are in line with whatever he thinks will earn him recognition.
ReplyDeleteBork's main issue is that he refuses to accept that times are changing. Society's natural tendency and goal has always been to progress as a whole in order to better the lives of the people living within it. By suggesting that we should always look back to what was and never to what should be, Bork is implying that he does not believe that forward motion is for the better. The very thought of that idea is simply baffling. If we as a whole refuse to let new things come about in order to improve every day life, then we will become nothing more than a primitive, stagnant society.
ReplyDeleteFurther more, upon reading a comment posted by one of my peers and in reference to the "Whose Constitution Is It Anyway?" article, I would like to address Bork's point about international influence on national issues. While it is a legitimate point to say that a nation should not try citizens of other nations for crimes completely unrelated to the aforementioned nation, it is utter lunacy to state that what the large majority of the world thinks of a country should not even somewhat influence the outcome of court cases dealing with social issues. Do not misjudge my intentions here as extreme, but I wish to convey that what other nations think of a country is actually kind of important. In light of my previous statement about misjudging my intentions, I would like flirt with the extreme side here and point out that ignoring outside views of our own country could quite possibly result in the rest of the world viewing us as we once viewed Nazi Germany and Communist China. Bork believes that our country can do no wrong as long as we adhere to the guidelines set forth by the Constitution. However, the Constitution was meant to address the issues and challenges of a different time; change is necessary every once in a while. I wish to ask this question to Bork and to those who support him: If the world hated us, would you still refute international influence?
Bork clearly has ultraconservative views which the first video highlights. Although the first video clearly biased, it does show that his views are inconsistent with those of modern American society. As Karthik mentioned, Ted Kennedy attacked Bork on national television, making Bork seem extremist in his views. He also had his part in Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre where he complied and agreed with Nixon's unconstitutional decision to fire Archibald Cox which shows his flawed judgement.
ReplyDeleteAn interview of Nominee Bork about his role in the Saturday night Massacrehttp://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/17/us/bork-hearings-nominee-s-recollection-his-watergate-role-solicitor-general.html?pagewanted=1
His ideas are outdated but the first video alone is not sufficient enough to form an opinion on whether he should be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Bork defends his view sufficiently, however. His theory that constitutional precedent has no place in Supreme Court decisions is very modern. Although his stance on abortion is controversial, his point that the Roe v. Wade decision has no legal reasoning behind it is intriguing and tenable.
Like everyone has said, Bork is very conservative and interprets the Constitution very very strictly. However, some of his beleifs are ancient in the now progressive America. For example, he wanted a poll tax and did not believe freedom of speech does not apply to literature, art, and music.
ReplyDeleteIn the second video, Bork does defend his views in a believable way. He does defend his point of veiw on abortion well, even though it was controversial.
I agree with what everyone is saying here: Bork is definitely obstinate in his ability to recognize the constitution as a living document. And as Daniel Reader said, I am a little concerned about his motives. However, just to play Devil's Advocate here for a second...
ReplyDeleteWhat would it be to have someone like Bork on the Supreme Court. Sure, he does not agree with the general population's political views, but do we really want all of the Supreme Court Justices to represent mainstream Amercia? That would result in no representation for people who hold varying, but slightly less popular, views. A Supreme Court made up of only progressive liberals would mean that they would have limited disagreements over rulings. That may sound great but if everyone holds the same views, who is there to keep balance? With a more politically diverse group, there is a higher chance of reaching a well developed conclusion. If you had Justices ranging from extreme progressive left to ultraconservative right, then all sides of the argument are present and the conclusion that would arise would be much stronger than one that came from a group soley comprised of liberals or soley comprised of conservatives. It would give things more balance.
Bork may have backwards views in modern day, but he would certainly be a voice to make people reconsider and look at ideas from all angles.
Is he the right conservative for the job? Maybe not. But it is certainly interesting to think about the effects of opposite extremes in the Supreme Court.
Although Bork seems to know what he is talking about, I don't really like him. His opposition to women's rights and racial integration is probably one of many reasons why he wasn't chosen to be a part of the Supreme Court. He also has a very different perspective and beliefs than the modern day judges which may have decreased his chances even more of ever becoming a judge.
ReplyDeleteBork's views don't seem to be in step with American society right now. His ideas are a bit old, and it seems like he can't accept the fact that America has changed. With American culture changing, his views no longer apply to modern society.
ReplyDeletePoliticians are becoming increasingly selfish and all about the title, instead of heading campaigns that would benefit the american public. Bork flaunts his conservative views hoping to sway opinion in his favor. His traditional views on strict constructionism is not compatible with modern day americans views. He's fishing for recognition, and is trying too hard for a supreme court bid.
ReplyDeleteIt seems the "Borked" the verb is reflexive. He can blame himself for not being admitted to the supreme court. Perhaps if he sought to act out of constitutional interpretation and not the dissemination of his view, then he would have been granted the courtship. he seems to hold an obstinacy and bluntness that seems unbecoming of the highest rule in the land. He also exhibits an aged and unwelcoming air that, though well learned, gives him the appearance of stubbornness. Bork's case is better said in federalist no. 78, "The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT"
ReplyDelete