Robert Bork - Supreme Court Nominee Defeated by Partisanship before the Nomination Process Ever Started

[The Hersch]

Quote

And if it makes my position any more credible, I'm still grousing about Robert Bork, who fully deserved to be voted onto the Supreme Court, and was rejected entirely because of partisan politics.

Bork was rejected because of his history, his ideological disposition, and his disastrous hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. His nomination was reported out of committee to the full Senate, where he was rejected by a vote of 58 to 42, with six Republicans joining all but two Democrats voting against his confirmation. To say he "fully deserved to be voted onto the Supreme Court" is to assume facts not in evidence. His confirmation would almost certainly have harmed the Republic. Nothing in the Bork saga compares to the refusal of the Senate majority to even consider President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, whose only failing was to have been nominated by Barack Obama, whose own principal failing was to be President while black, and whom the Republicans in both Houses of Congress were determined to thwart on every issue, even those that had been favored by Republicans in the past. Remember that after the Senate rejected Bork, they confirmed Anthony Kennedy by a vote of 97 to 0.

[DonRocks]

1 hour ago, The Hersch said:

Bork was rejected because of his history, his ideological disposition, and his disastrous hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

All I'll say is, I watched as much of the hearings as I could have, and I agree with you about points #1 and #2; as to point #3, I thought the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was disastrous all right, but I didn't think it was "his" disaster, and I'll leave it at that.