Comments on: Specter Speaks Truth About Bork

By: Dr William Gissy

Dr William Gissy — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:59:21 +0000

Specter’s views on the Borking of Bork are about as sensible as his “magic bullet” theory…he is a two-bit opportunist who will stab anyone in the back if it will win him an election..he is the lowest form of intellectual whore

By: Highcen

Highcen — Sat, 23 Jul 2005 03:00:13 +0000

When I read that this blog was being put up by former SCOTUS law clerks and so many of them were infected by Ginsberg I knew what I would find here. A pox on all you leftwing idiots. God gave you brains and you desecrated them.

By: Stephan

Stephan — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:43:47 +0000

I took a look at your website, The Editors. Is it disillusionment or idiocy?

Man, you’re nuts.

By: kindness

kindness — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:40:27 +0000

editor you TROLL, go away!

By: The Editors, American Federalist Journal

The Editors, American Federalist Journal — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 02:26:35 +0000

Specter, like Ted Kennedy before him, slandered Bork. They implied that Bork would allow legal segregation, when in fact Bork said in his apperance before the Senate Judiciary committee that Brown v. Board of Education was properly decided. Specter was at that hearing, so he knows Bork supported Brown. So Specter is either lying or he’s gone daft and should resign.

By: rose

rose — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:08:31 +0000

Every time I hear msm or bloggers talk about Bork I want to quibble a bit. I remember when Bork fired Cox. That was one of the few times when non political citizens were hooked in to politics. The smell had not fully cleared when Bork was nominated to scotus. In fact we were still refering to getting fired for doing the job you were hired for as getting borked. He was nominated at a time of rather low citizen engagement in politics. Suddenly, angry people with short but sharp memories of the saturday night massacre were on street corners expressing a dim view of such an appointment. It could happen again.

By: progressive and proud

progressive and proud — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:56:35 +0000

From President George Washington, circa 1789:
“Just as the President has the right to nominate without assigning reasons, so has the Senate a right to dissent without giving theirs.”

By: kindness

kindness — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:47:04 +0000

You are funny. Written into the agreement is a clause which allows anyone to filibuster if the nominee is too extreme.

That is what we are talking about here. The agreement was for coordial, mutually respectful behaviour. It wasn’t a blank check.

We’ll all just have to wait and see who dubya nominates.

ps – Alberto now has 3-2 odds. If Bush nominates hime, he’ll pass over the howls of both the hard right (abortion rights) and the hard left (OKing torture & disreguarding the Geneva Convention).

By: Always Right

Always Right — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:00:31 +0000

kindness,

Just exactly how are you going to “bork” the nominee? We have an agreement that says there will be no more filibusters except in extra-ordinary circumstances, which may be hard to prove here since you let in Owens, Brown, etc. There is a Republican majority in the Senate now and that was not the case in 1987.

By: Darth Filibustrous

Darth Filibustrous — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:40:48 +0000

It’s amazing how the braindead media including CNN repeat Republican terminology such as “Borking” without having anybody point out the other side (the truth) that Bork borked himself..

Remember Judge “Thalidomide” Bork? The monster! Why do we have such a short term memory?

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:17:45 +0000

Bork was defeated because the Senate tilted democrat (54-46, I think). His vote was 58-42, so 4 republicans broke ranks. If he was nominated in a 55-45 republican tilted Senate, he would have been confirmed. So that would mean he is mainstream today, or at least close to it.

By: Mimikatz

Mimikatz — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:04:48 +0000

Specter is right, but I also think (and remember it being said at the time) that Bork was an unsympathetic figure to the public because he just looked too weird and came off as very condescending in the committee questioning. Ironically, the right is more conventional in most all respects, and Bork did look a bit “out of the mainstream.” So–Bork did himself in, but the means isn’t so clearcut.

By: kindness

kindness — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:54:59 +0000

I’ve been on a few of the rightie sites lately just to see what they think. They are salivating like Pavlov’s dog. There is a HUGE disconnect between what they are saying and what can be done. Talk about out-of-mainstream…

Bush’ll nominate nothing but conservatives. I know. But it all will depend upon what kind of conservatives he puts up there. If he goes out on a limb too far, we’ll Bork him just like Reagan.

By: joseph

joseph — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:38:33 +0000

this is why the right-wing is ready to stick a knife in specter. he’s just too honest sometimes