| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| The Legacy Of Bork |
| 2017-03-22 |
| [FOXNEWS] The "Borking" of Judge Robert Bork may have forever altered the way nominees approach their confirmation hearings. Faced with uncomfortable questions about their views on abortion, religious liberties, gay rights, gun rights, free speech, federalism and the separation of powers, most nominees now strain to yield as little information as possible. Sincerity gives way to prevarication. Probity takes a back seat to guile. They bob and weave. It’s like watching a legal version of boxing's famous "rope-a-dope" in the 1974 Rumble in the Jungle. Senators on the Judiciary Committee resemble George Foreman swinging away endlessly, hoping to land a knockout blow. Nominees play the role of Muhammad Ali, leaning against the ropes with gloves raised to deflect the many punches until the opponent drops, inexorably, from fatigue. An expected contest of judicial philosophies, like the fight, becomes a farce. Any hope of honesty and transparency in the confirmation hearing is lost to the trick of an evasive technique. Blows (competing ideas) are absorbed and soon dissipate. And everyone departs the arena none the wiser. Least of all, the American public. And so it is that nearly all Supreme Court nominees since Bork have volunteered precious little about what they may believe or how they might decide cases that affect, sometimes dramatically, the lives of citizens everywhere. It is the unfortunate legacy of Robert Bork. To his credit, Gorsuch faced many of the hard questions with a forthright mien and manner uncommon among recent confirmation hearings. He sought not to deflect or demur whenever an response might pose a risk. Perhaps it is because his rectitude is beyond reproach. Maybe it is because the vast majority of his rulings are justified under the law and, therefore, correct. Inevitably, some in the Senate chamber will vote against Gorsuch. They will do so not because he is unqualified, because surely he is. They will do it because it is politically prudent or electorally expedient. And in Washington, after all, partisan politics is king these days. But when Neil Gorsuch is confirmed to the Supreme Court, he will bring with him the potential to become one of its giants. He appears beholden to no one and cares only about following the law, wherever it may take him, as he made plain in response to one Senator’s question: "A good judge doesn’t give a wit about politics or the political implication of his decision," he said. "My job is not to write the laws, but to apply and interpret those laws. Whether mighty or meek, rich or poor...everyone is protected by our laws equally." |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #1 Gorsuch comes across as a solid guy for SCROTUS. Described as a literalist, "originalist" (Constitutionalist) in the mold of Scalia. Feinstein and Schumer and other Donks do not like Gorsuch. They view him as the enemy of their Prog. agenda. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2017-03-22 08:46 |