Borkiversary 20

In my lifetime I date the viciousness of political smearing to the confirmation hearings of Robert Bork. It got nasty during the Clinton years, and crescendoed with Bush, but Bork was a foretaste of things to come. A training camp for liberals and conservatives both. A new verb entered our language, "to bork" or to destroy a man while smirking and posturing in front of a TV audience. Gary L. McDowell wrote in the WSJ this week:

"The issue that united the judge's critics in their fiery, scorched-earth opposition was never his ability or reputation but rather his theory of judging. Mr. Bork's belief was that judges and justices in their interpretations of the Constitution must be bound to the original intentions of its framers."

"At its deepest level, Mr. Bork's defeat was the result of the very public affirmation by the Senate of a dangerous theory of ideological judging that had been developing for quite some time. It was the idea of a so-called "living" Constitution, one that various scholars have said means there need be "no theoretical gulf between law and morality," and that ordinary judges are empowered to interpret the fundamental law in light of their own "fresh moral insight" in order to effect a judicially mandated "moral evolution" of the nation."

Some say it was about abortion, but I think that was just the tossed bone used to whip up the masses--mainly women, because men really don't care. It was about judges taking over the responsibilities of the law makers--although why our linguini spined elected officials desired that, I can't imagine. Even Clarence Thomas says his "lynching" by liberals, black and white, was about abortion. You would almost hope that was it. In his case, I'd say it was pure racism, ugly and vile, with little or nothing to do with abortion or constitutional interpretation.

For all his other slip-ups from immigration to not fixing social security, Bush has at least given us Roberts and Alito.