Robert Bork: Supreme Court Nomination Hearings from PBS NewsHour and EMK Institute
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 09. 2024
- Stay Informed: emkinstitute.or...
As the Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan get underway, the Edward M. Kennedy Institute is partnering with the PBS NewsHour to provide video highlights of the nine most recent Senate confirmation hearings.
President Reagan nominated Judge Bork to the Supreme Court on July 1, 1987. After a heated confirmation battle, the Senate rejected his nomination by a 42-58 vote on October 23, 1987.
Love these old News Hour clips. If they aren't already all online, they should put them all online. RIP Robert Bork.
They actually let the guest (nominee) time to speak. Today, it is nothing more than a series of talking points by the Senator/Representative, leaving next to no time for the guest to answer. That said, they still came into the hearing with their minds already made up!
Always a gentleman.
Robert Bork is the model that no subsequent nominee followed. People complain about Supreme Court nominees not telling us nothing and being general in their answers but when someone like Bork gives us what we want we reject their nomination.
thats what i was thinking when comparing this to the markedly reserved answers of coney barrett. and even when she answered in this guarded way, the opposition extrapolated all the accusations they wanted from her silence or whatever implications could be made from fairly innocuous details from decades prior. so there is something of an arms race going on with the senate.
Why do you admire this person that wants to limit your most basic rights? Or is it just because it doesn't affect you because you're his target demographic?
He gave us a load of hot fucking air combined with viewpoints too extreme for even the 80s. He voted to keep segregation in place!
@@-divinetragedy he did not vote so. His problem was with upholding Comstock and being anti gay
@@-divinetragedy you can’t judge judges and their opinions based on what’s politically convenient and morally good in your mind
You have to judge them based on actual legal arguments
I’d like to hear your legal arguments as to why Bork’s opinions aren’t valid
What a shame. Bork was brilliant.
Brilliant as a person and well-spoken yes. But he did not belong on the Supreme Court.
liberty Ann Meaningless comment. State WHY
@@thomaspayne6866
It's not meaningless. You just don't understand it.
@@thomaspayne6866 do not expect a cogent reply.
liberty Ann
@Angelo
It's not meaningless. You just don't understand it.
You seem to be one lame ass, lazy individual, why did you not elaborate on Angelo's question, in regards to Robert Bork not belonging on the Supreme Court?
Wow, Bork was brilliant! Supreme Court Nomination hearings are a joke nowadays. The depth of his responses is unparalleled. Contrast these hearings with the hearings over the last 10 years.
The Jews feared this brilliant man.
Winston Smith you are a fucking moron. Do you know how many of his students and legal admirers are Jewish?
That was the problem. He was too honest about what his views were that it sunk his confirmation. Nominees to the SC ever since have been very careful with their words.
Winston Smith yep
@@winstonsmith535 may I ask why you are targetting the Jewish people??
For the shenanigans during the Kavanaugh hearing, this hearing was what paved the way for that behavior. Thanks Kennedy
To say nothing of Anita Hill; supposedly sexually harassed, but she followed Thomas with each promotion. Seems like she was thrown in, like a grenade, when the Dems realized they didn't have the votes ( just like Blasey Ford years later ). If Trump had picked a man to succeed RBG, he certainly would have been accused of sexual crimes.
And to think Ted Kennedy killed a woman and got away with it. A shit person. Biden is a turd too
@@lincolnmaceachern2410 did you hear of the second woman who never got to tesify
Damn we really missed out this guy was good !
If you’re into theocracies and segregation, sure.
I guess if you're into corrupt Watergate figures & people who want to roll back on civil rights, then yes... he's a saint.
Prof 138 can you elaborate on bork’s stance on segregation?
@@KleWdSide oh brother give me a fkn break you know Bork doesn't want to roll back civil rights 😂 he just wants the legislative branch to deal with democratic ideas not a couple of tyrants (judges)
@@KleWdSide now we have Jim Crow Joe Biden as leader. Or whoever is pulling strings. Talk about pro-segregation
Robert H. Bork very smart man
the smartest man besides einstein himself
NOT a racist
Not re contraceptives not GLBT
@@biruss😂4😢🎉
Judge Bork should be on the Supreme Court right now.
No
He's too dead to do that
@@mrrogersrabbit LMAO, I was about to say the exact same thing. He is dead and living in hell with Ronald Reagan now. 😁
Sorry Z Watkins---He (Bork) is dead and living in hell with Ronald Reagan now. 😁
@@boomerang6130 no, only democrats go to hell
Thomas Jefferson wrote, in his notes on Virginia, that once HIS idea of what the Constitution represented, that that, was the Republic vetted. His Republic, was the Republic that had the integrity and should be the Constitution of "We, the People". Thomas Jeffersons Constitution is what Lincoln used to describe as a Government Of the People, By the People, For the people.
Yeah but that means majority rules
@@kristinapace3056 That's what Democracy is. It's how it's supposed to work. The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. What did you think a Democracy is?
Exactly my point same hat different head
jefferson was a racist...his ideas are shit stains
Reagan turned it into a government of, for and by corporations
Robert Bork would have been a good justice.
In Iraq.
He is a brilliant mind. But I think he may be a little too unbending for the Supreme Court.
Nixon appreciated him, until he didn't.
Not for privacy rights
@Vincent Cuttolo 9th amendment not so much
I may be naive but Bork didn't paint himself as stupidly as most other politicos
Which is why Biden said he’d never vote him in.
His response to the questions re: Griswold was weak and evasive. He refused to pick up Biden's premise based on flimsy assumptions. Just cause he thought there was no way a prosecutor would actually *do* a thing makes no difference as to whether they MIGHT. Constitution protections are largely based on theoreticals.
That killer was sitting in judgment of Bork!
An unsavory politician bashing the conduct of someone who had a good reputation. Imagine
Oh now I know who you mean! 😂
The laughter in the room at 11:32 is why you never ask an intelligent man a dumb question with people around.
And they let him run for president :'(
It is a pity that Robert Bork was not nominated, he would have been a great judge in the Supreme Court.
He was nominated. That's what this hearing is about. His problem was that the Senate voted against his confirmation.
@@NextGenStudentUC You are right, I meant not confirmed by the Senate who are more interested in making money through the lobby system, which is bribery and blatant abuse of power and the public suffers because appropriate laws to curb abusees are water downed or not passed.
IDK about that for sure
I seriously doubt it
@@M.A.C.01 On what basis are you doubting my statement, do you have any evidence?
Today's senators could learn something from senators of the past who didn't constantly say reclaim my time reclaim my time when somebody they're questioning is speaking
There is a time limit for HR members during hearings. If the person testifying is attempting to filibuster with their answer, or simply isn't giving the Congressman the answer they want, the Congressman will request to reclaim their time so that they can ask more questions later. I don't think there was a time limit rule for Senate hearings in the 80s.
Judge Bork was a better man than what the media assumed at that time.
RS. Canada
Bork would have made a great Supreme Court Justice. What a shame he didn't.
He'd be anti glbt
Judge Bork went to my church. I saw him there most Sundays.
Brilliant mind
Hatchet man in Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre
@Vincent Cuttolo he ruled on favor of a company that fired fertile women.
@Vincent Cuttolo OCAW v. American Cyanamid. He condoned the companies telling the women to get sterilized or lose their jobs. They coukd have made the ladies forfeit a right to sue for birth defects that resulted from voluntary exposure to hazardous chemicals. No rational basis when there was a less burdensome and infringing alternative.
@Vincent Cuttolo they coukd have forbade pregnant women to work or sent them home, or had thrm sign a liability release
@Vincent Cuttolo barreness is not a bfooq
He makes a lot of sense and has common sense
Long live robert bork s legacy
1. Bork got Borked
2. Clearance got Borked
3. Kavanaugh got Borked
4. Who's next
I was in third grade at this time, and I wrote a letter to Senator D'Amato asking him to vote no. I said 'Judge Bork doesn't care about Black peoples' rights." The real reason I hated Bork was that they cancelled my cartoons to put this hearing on TV.
Lmao
Sorry you lost your cartoons. Sadly, with the rejection of Bork, as a country, we lost our marbles.
Would you still ask the senator to vote no?
@@grovercleavland2698 I probably would. The constitution was meant to protect our personal rights and limit what the government could do to us. It wasn't designed to keep everyone moral.
Congratulation. You made a better argument against Bork’s nomination than any senator on that floor.
Brilliant mind!
What a waste, Bork was sharp.
Bork was a disgrace, a threat to civil liberties and a friend of power hungry politicians. He deserved to to have been rejected.
@@ryanscates1011 Amen! I am glad they rejected him. This man looks like a drunk....look at him...LMAO--
Reject him for peeing on the 9th amendment
C- Biden from no name law school asking about a wire tap and condoms. Little surprise here.
5:46 "I don't want to be regarded as an apparatchik, an organization man who will do whatever the organization wants".
No republican today would ever actually think this.
Same for any democrat today. They're cogs in the dem machine.
It was a brilliant 1 liner. Tulsi G does have a similar mindset.
Sen Kennedy...nobody lower...paved the way for Gross Bad Manners in politics...
It’s so interesting watching this. Bork isn’t dumb. He’s just very much his own man and absolutely not afraid to be himself. Some people love that. Others don’t because it makes them question the need to conform and fit in. I like Bork but at the end of the day, his role in the Saturday Night massacre during the Watergate Scandal was probably what really sunk his nomination. That and originalist interpretations of the constitution are by their nature extremely partisan.
@ Michael Cortez No Robert Bork was not dumb but he had such extreme legal opinions that there were some Conservatives leery of having him on the Supreme Court . I wouldn’t go to the extreme and call Bork a Nazi but Bork did harbor a lot of autocratic views that I considered dangerous to our Republic .
@@dagnabbit6187 Like?
@@tomjones3232 It is there . Google it
@@dagnabbit6187 I mean, you brought it up. I'm trying to understand why his opinions were so extreme.
Kind of hard to do that when I don't know what to look for.
and sometimes they give us bad ones.
IMO Bork was not confirmed because of his actions during watergate during a democratic majority and his closing remarks on why he wanted to serve on the high court.
He lost because of his mistake vin stating Griswold v Connecticut and Bowers v. Hardwick
Blessed are the Peacemakers - ALL who in their God Ordained Office Only desire for ALL in their sphere of influence to know why they do what they do and to change course NOW - if they so desire - before it is forever too late!
This is the last time a Supreme Court nominee was able to openly articulate his/her views. Now all they do is obfuscate and stall during the hearings in order not to get "Borked" by the opposition
The problem with this doc is it plays both siderism. The Federalist Society is a small organization in each law school representing 1-3% of students. But it represents a near 100% of Republican judges. Republicans only pick from the most conservative of lawyers. On the flip side Democrats pick center right corporate lawyers. The 10% of truly liberal lawyers are not even in consideration. Where is the ACLU lawyer, or the Green Peace lawyer or The SPLC lawyer up for judgeship? Democrats did not start this fight, they fought back when it became clear that the Republicans had abandoned the idea of picking moderate judges, and would only pick from this tiny 1% of lawyers who are in the Federalist Society. The Dems pick from the other 99%. Which of these two process is radical?
Second, this docs fails to mention that the Republicans have had a majority of Judges since Reagan. But where the bar was set for considering conservative justice kept changing. Sandra Day O'Connor was a very conservative judge by any historical standard. The fact that she became a swing vote does not change that. It just shows how right the court moved with Republicans only picking people who were in their society of radicals. After she retired, Kennedy was the swing vote. Kennedy is on the record saying he uses the Federalist Society to find his clerks. Kennedy is more conservative than O'Connor, but than is the swing vote.
This idea that Democrats changed the game is nonsense. Democrats reacted to Republicans changing of the game in a radical way.
Ronald Backer This is a good observation.
RBG is an former ACLU lawyer.
The left has thrown out the constitution plenty
Reminder: Bork was given a full hearing in a Democratic Senate, which resulted in a 5-9 vote against him.
Bork then demanded a vote from the full Senate anyway, Democrats obliged! And he was again voted down again 42-58, with six Republicans voting no.
Bork was no victim. He was an extreme, weird nominee. But false memory of Republican nominated judges reflects the media bubble conservatives populate where old grievances are chewed over endlessly.
#1 NOW IS A PERFECT TIME TO TAKE A LOOK AT *TERM LIMITS FOR ALL FEDERAL JUDGES *THE REAL-ISSUE CONCERNING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES = 3/4 OF A CENTURY FOR ONE MIND-SET ON A BENCH IS JUST TOO LONG!!! This is predicated on the answer to the question: Why are POLITICIANS from both parties clamoring so fervently to nominate Justices to all of the Federal Court benches? The answer to that question provides a clear understanding of how Americans have come to view our Federal Judges, and that is, as an arm of each political party, respectively. And the main follow-through on this fact is that Judges these days are more-than-willing to issue partisan rulings these days. This is in fact, realized, in the many rulings that have been issued from the various benches, from the lower Courts, right up through the Applet Courts, and through to the Supreme Court of these Lands. Just look at the resent Florida Court ruling on the "restoration of felon's right's to vote in elections. Consider the referendum-vote of the people of Florida, who voted overwhelming to give those rights back to those felons who have served their time for crimes committed." The Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, in his plight to manipulate the voter-ranks in the 2020 election, devised a plan to withhold the restoration of those felon's rights by arbitrarily imposing the requirement that those felons must pay back any fines before being able to vote. Moving through the court system, the claims of those felons, that this was not the People's Will, was dismissed by (Republican favored) Applet Judges, in favor of the voter-suppressing Republican Governor. This sort of ruling is plainly clear that Federal Judges are becoming increasingly partisan with their rulings. This could come back to find the Republican ranks on the other side of such future partisan rulings. So this is the solution: "We need to find a way to take partisanship out of our judicial system, the way it was intended in the first place. We need Term Limits for our Federal Judges, and a reform of the process of which they are appointed to the Benches" I believe, with the modern political climate, it will be impossible to solve, that is, within the process justices are appointed today. I believe the American People would be better served if our Judges were VOTED onto the benches by both branches of the government: House and the Senate. Most importantly, I believe LIFE APPOINTMENTS to the Bench is severely problematic for the Republic. Three quarters of a century could go by, having a partisan Justice sitting on the bench skewing rulings that only make sense to a small number of American Citizens. This has to change if we are to have a better system of government. The course we are on now will only render the US looking more and more like Belarus of today.
Everything you brought up sounds good. However, everything you brought up was brought up and argued by the founders. With judges having life tender removes the ability for corruption. Unless something could possibly be used against one for blackmail. Think of John Roberts and OBC ruling.
Frankly, judges shouldn't be representative of the people. That is where all the risks are: in having judges who believe they represent the people. The people can change the law if they want, but we should be able to rely on judges to uphold whatever we have made the law to be. (We could certainly do with more responsible journalism regarding the facts of the case and the legal underpinnings of decisions.)
It's easy to "both sides" a great many things, but it is worth considering: when was the last time a democrat president (or the party generally) were consistently upset by the rulings of a SCOTUS Justice that was nominated by their party? Maybe Justice Byron White, who was nominated in the early 1960s. Meanwhile, in the last 15 years or so alone, Republicans have continuously lamented Stevens, Souter, Kennedy, Roberts, and more recently, Kavanaugh. [It's actually a pretty interesting phenomenon to read about, called "The Greenhouse Effect" after the NYT journalist who covered SCOTUS.]
Stunning intellect ( Bork ). Wonder how it would have turned out with him on SC.
Wrong on glbt issues. He is personally biased agsinst them
If only he'd said 'I like BEER'!
@@johnmorris482 Back in 1987, Christine Blasey-Ford was still a would be beach cat lady. The wine and sun had yet to take their toll.
We would have got to today, 15 years earlier. And today we most likely would have instated authoritarian rule. Lets see if holding back the future 15 years can change it, so a democracy survives.
@@ronaldbacker5475 Quite probably the Democrats would have made more of an issue of a politicised Supreme Court in the 1988 election, or in 1992. That would be almost certain if someone like Edith Jones (who was younger than Clarence Thomas and just as conservative) was able to be nominated in place of David Souter without the fear of rejection Bork produced. Bork and Jones would have given a 6-3 majority to overturn Roe v. Wade in 1992.
However, one can say exactly the same things about George Harrold Carswell in 1970 that could be said about Bork. If Carswell had got through, Gerald Ford would have been much less gun-shy about nominating an explicit conservative in place of John Paul Stevens. If that nominee was not turned down by a Senate more liberal than those who rejected Carswell and Bork, any 1976 Democratic nominee would have made much out of it - or the Democrats would have done so decades earlier than 2020.
That s right
"Isn't that a bogus argument. we're not talking about unisex toliets here we're talking about fundamental rights". Fast forward 40 yrs same room there arguing for unisex toliets lol
Bork calling Orson, Bork calling Orson, come in Orson ... was this guy from another planet? =P
I'd never actually seen Bork's testimony before. Thanks for the upload.
Compared to most of the justices who've been confirmed since, Bork seems both level-headed and super smart. That Thomas, Suter and Sotomayor are wearing robes and this guy isn't ranks up there with Chappaquiddick among Teddy's greatest disgraces.
Sadly, he didn't get the 9th
15:15 now what do we have?
I never heard a candidate so forthright in his answers!
And you'll never hear it again.
@nedster7 I agree most laws need to be repealed as their unintended consequences are limiting our freedoms and doing nothing, or making worse, for the lives of the ones they are purported to help. This action of massive repeals would probably keep Congress busy day and night for years.
Judy Woodward so cute back then, Bork would have been best judge in history
Cris E-- you're right-- Judy Woodruff was so cute-- and decades later she's still taking names and doing kick&ass interview s -- and looking mighty fine-- what a woman
I-I think it was the “spooky” frightening beard that caused Judge Robert Bork’s non-confirmation to the Supreme Court.
-He obviously was intelligent educated man and seemed a decent guy.
RS. Canada
Too bad Judge Bork did not make it on the bench. I think he would have made a great justice.
While he was able to think on his feet, Borks continous reliance on inconsistent excuses was probably a bad reflection on his character. His explanation of the Saturday night massacre sounds suspiciously too convenient.
@Zachw2007 his only problem was pride and that he needed to show the entire room that he was smarter than them, which he was.
if he only kept it together, he would have gotten confirmed.
Interesting
Ted Kennedy... He's getting his just desserts as we speak.
Kennedy is a hero and is in heaven. Bork and Reagan are serving in hell. hth...LOL
Tee Kennedy was a terrible person
Kennedy, Reagan, and Bork are all at rest, like we will be. Nothing more, nothing less.
March
Never voted Democrat again after this hearing.... he was a great jurist.
Right off the bat his firing of Cox did not make him look particularly good to me. It was a mistake.
Regarding Griswold and Connecticut's ban on contraception, the law was NOT dead letter.
Arrests were few because the law chilled doctors', nurses', pharmacists', health clinics', etc. interest in discussing, prescribing, and dispensing contraceptives.
Also the ban had two parts. The first prohibited consumer use The second banned aiding and abetting anyone so they use contraception. This part of the law war enforced against health care providers. Otherwise, there would have been no defendants who could sue for the law to be declared unconstitutional.
Bork made a big booboo there
Hello random person. Good luck on the civics homework.
You know, Robert Bork sounds to have been a brilliant man, one who puts to shame a lot of the potential justices in their confirmation hearings, Alito and Kavanaugh being two examples. As a matter of fact, I remember his hearings, and even back then I didn't understand the ruckus the Democrats were making. Of course, I hadn't understood at that time that the Democrats were smearing him based on the fact that they didn't want ANY Republican nominee to be confirmed, that it wouldn't have mattered WHO was nominated; the Democrats were going to gang up on them. How far we've sunk.
who's the lady in the gray suit behind him?
Wow, this in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing? I’m aghast! Why was this allowed to happen? WAY too political of a candidate!! Toxic candidate, terrible, terrible choice!! 🤯
And Biden - what a jerk! 😝
Robert Bork was a racist and a criminal who didn't deserve to be anywhere near a court room
@@jewishqueenrebecca3943 he was a bastard indeed. These people will never understand how many people would suffer with this guy on the SCOTUS. Or maybe they enjoy it or don't care. Why can't the government just stay out of people's business? (lgbtq, the whole privacy thing) I though that was what conservatives stood for, or do they only stand for it when it benefits the big businesses that line their pockets?
@@jewishqueenrebecca3943 no, he was just anti privacy and forgot the 9th amendment
@@jewishqueenrebecca3943 If you believe Bork to be a racist, I would suggest watching the contradictory testimony (in this same hearing) of Thomas Sowell, who supported Bork's confirmation and refuted assertions from the senators who smeared Judge Bork as a racist, misogynist, etc.
Strom!
If Bork had been confirmed, how likely do you think it is that the Court would have overturned the Roe V. Wade decision in Casey or one of the other abortion cases? Furthermore, what would the court look like now if he were on it (making allowances for his age of course).
How would have ruled on texas v. Lawrence
He wouldve overruled Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey because Kennedy, who was the man who replaced Borks nomination, voted in favor of keeping Roe which Bork never would've.
If they'd known about the deal he made with Nixon, Reagan wouldn't have nominated him.
Bork getting turned down is equivalent to George Washington getting taken out of history books in favor of Madonna...which if you didn't know, is actually happening.
Read his views on what people do in their bedroom
Robe her toes. Then we need lower case robes. Safe and culturally upsetting to the farther cases. I agree here. We don't withstand the same rigors, figures and burdens. So it's no right here to be held by the judgements of the far past made far away. Especially where cars and trucks aren't yet rights a they're pulled up out of our crater lake valley. How did they ever drive to school, much less trial?
Bork? More like DORK! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahshahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahhahahahhahahhhahahhahahahhhahahahhhhhahhhhahhhahhhahahahahahahahhahahahahhahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahhahahahhahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhaahahahahhahahhahahahhaahahahahahahhahahhaahahahahhahhahahhahahhahahahahahhahhahhahhahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhhahahahahhahahahahahahahaahhahahahhaahahahahhahahahhhahahahhhahahahhahhahahahahhahahhahahahahahahhhahahahahhahahahahahhhahahhahhhahahahahhhahahahahhhahhahahahahhahahhhahahahahhahahahahhhhahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahhhahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahaahhahahhahahhahhahahhahahhahahhahahhahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhaahahhahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahhahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahhaahahahahahahahhahahhahhahahahahhhaahahahhahahhaahahahhaahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahshahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahhahahahhahahhhahahhahahahhhahahahhhhhahhhhahhhahhhahahahahahahahhahahahahhahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahhahahahhahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhaahahahahhahahhahahahhaahahahahahahhahahhaahahahahhahhahahhahahhahahahahahhahhahhahhahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhhahahahahhahahahahahahahaahhahahahhaahahahahhahahahhhahahahhhahahahhahhahahahahhahahhahahahahahahhhahahahahhahahahahahhhahahhahhhahahahahhhahahahahhhahhahahahahhahahhhahahahahhahahahahhhhahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahhhahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahaahhahahhahahhahhahahhahahhahahhahahhahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhaahahhahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahhahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahhaahahahahahahahhahahhahhahahahahhhaahahahhahahhaahahahhaahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahhahahajahahahahahahahahahajahajajhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhhhahahahahahahhhahahahagaghahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahshahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahhahahahhahahhhahahhahahahhhahahahhhhhahhhhahhhahhhahahahahahahahhahahahahhahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahhahahahhahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhaahahahahhahahhahahahhaahahahahahahhahahhaahahahahhahhahahhahahhahahahahahhahhahhahhahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhhahahahahhahahahahahahahaahhahahahhaahahahahhahahahhhahahahhhahahahhahhahahahahhahahhahahahahahahhhahahahahhahahahahahhhahahhahhhahahahahhhahahahahhhahhahahahahhahahhhahahahahhahahahahhhhahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahhhahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahaahhahahhahahhahhahahhahahhahahhahahhahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhaahahhahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahhahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahhaahahahahahahahhahahhahhahahahahhhaahahahhahahhaahahahhaahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahshahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhhahhahahahhahahhhahahhahahahhhahahahhhhhahhhhahhhahhhahahahahahahahhahahahahhahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahhahahahhahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhaahahahahhahahhahahahhaahahahahahahhahahhaahahahahhahhahahhahahhahahahahahhahhahhahhahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhhahahahahhahahahahahahahaahhahahahhaahahahahhahahahhhahahahhhahahahhahhahahahahhahahhahahahahahahhhahahahahhahahahahahhhahahhahhhahahahahhhahahahahhhahhahahahahhahahhhahahahahhahahahahhhhahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahhhahahahahhahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahaahhahahhahahhahhahahhahahhahahhahahhahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhaahahhahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahhahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahhaahahahahahahahhahahhahhahahahahhhaahahahhahahhaahahahhaahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahhahahajahahahahahahahahahajahajajhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhhhahahahahahahhhahahahagaghahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
9:37 Bork is obviously right and damn clear on this point, and here comes 11:12 Joe Biden with one of the dumbest hypotheticals ever. A wiretap to check for use of rubbers? Even the audience is amused.
Ironically he used that same wiretap with Obama to spy on trump administration. Joe is a vapid idiot!
That is hilarious 😂 Biden is an idiot lol
Tough on crime Biden. Bork would have voted against Patriot Act.
15:25 We're not talking about unisex toilets here. Flash forward to year 2020.
But the police did invade Hardwick privacy and the aiding and abetting Comstockion law was enforced
@checkersisfortramps You're wrong there are three branches; judiciary, legislature i.e. Senate/House and the Executive i.e. President and his Cabinet. Your thinking of Parliamentary where the Legislature and the executive are a fused to some deegre
12:05- 16:32 Robert Bork. 💯 Qualified for supreme court justice. What a disgrace democratic left media and senators tarnished his reputation.
Yes. As a fellow lftist I agree. This was a tragic mistake that set the stage for mcconnels power play
This was the beginning of the politicing of the Supreme Court where we were more concerned if the nine was on our side rather than if he or she was qualified
This was that point
Big Al Simpson, always a pisser!
@Zachw2007 Agreed.
Notice how Bork thought of himself as an Aparatchik, but not a "Useful Idiot"( which is not a slander)
Congress
Bork was a nut.
Mary Jo Kopechne couldn't be reached for comment.🏊
So true. As I get old, it's so frustrating to see humans forget history and refuse to learn from it. Even wild animals seem more orderly following their primordial instincts. Will we ever learn?
A white Democrat from Alabama? That’s different.
Even with the Reagan Revolution in national politics, Deep Southerners continued to vote for their Democrats in local and statewide elections until the mid-1990’s.
This guy taught one future President and taught the wife of that President that almost became President.
dont understand who would you ask bork about his beard what do this have do with it dont judge im just beacouse of the beard
What?
Ah, the post-Nixon era....what a circus!
When the democratic party had some brains
15:26
"That's bogus, We're not talking about unisex toilet seats"
10:49
20:13 that assumption would not be born in reality, Justice John Marshall Harlan said so immediately- not over time.
Alas, some bedroom activity becomes public when an abortion is sought. And what about contraceptives, which laws prohibited once? Had the Founders ever considered the possibility that the government would someday interfere with doctors' treatment of patients? Would they have approved? Of course, there is also the issue of abortions being illegal in the 18th and 19th centuries mainly because they killed so many women; were newer justifications for making them illegal on the Founders' minds? These tired old issues remain many years later when wisdom and common sense should have laid them to rest.
Lemons were used as contraception in 1790
But for evil men in the Senate Robert Bork would have been the greatest Jurist our country has ever known. Special place in hell for those who discredited him.
Bork was an amazing man with an amazing mind
He supported segregation.
@@paulolima4393 he specifically argues in favor of Brown here
The right of privacy is one of those rights which is a limit on the powers of government, even if not specifically in the Constitution. There are restrictions to government powers, and when a right is not specifically protected in the constitution, it is still up to the courts to keep government constrained within its define powers, instead of allowing the government to infringed on the unemurated rights of people. Thank God Bork is not on the court...
@Suave House Obama's ALSO bad.
Judge bork ,a good man!
Not for glbtq
Senate
@lladnarg murder requires intent to kill - if anything, I think it would have been negligent homicide...
'Supreme Revenge':))
Station XI, Meditation: Recall how Jesus lies down upon His Cross , and how He extends His arms to offer up the sacrifice of His life for our salvation. The soldiers nail Him, hands and feet, to His gibbet. And then they raise it, leaving Him to die upon it in terrible anguish.
Justice Alito belongs , as he speaks, here.
Nashville Music Row.
4-6
Poor guy made it clear he had principles. That's not how you impress congress.
RIP Judge, we are the lesser because of both your loss and your ordeal.
Yep, it's nice to hear someone mention this, however rare it is anymore. I like to say, it's suppose to be a system of checks and balances, and that includes the people too. Of course, people are so ingrained in the thought of democracy and "rights", and I'm sure I don't need to explain this to you, it don't go over too well.
Says someone who has been led to believe the lie that zźó
Guy is all BS
@KidSheIeen When a right is not found in the constitution, it isn't "remanded" to the states, but to the people, which is what the 9th amendment is for, as James Madison clearly explained to Congress when he introduced the bill of rights. Second, Bork's arguments contradicted what he wrote, and the distate this man had for individual rights was clearly seen by his answers to the committee. Third, if believing in general privacy makes me a dangerous person, then you must be tyranny's best friend.
I'm not sure what you're referring to as his distaste for individual rights. I listened to the entire clip, and I didn't hear anything that made me think he blatantly denied Constitutional rights to anyone through his rulings. Just because you don't agree with his philosophy does not make you right.
Right to privacy in your personal life
Sounds like a liberal to me
Okay he can placed on the Supreme Court Now.
7:00 Alan Simpson was hilarious