by Dan Bubalo – Judge Robert H. Bork passed away on December 19th with hardly a mention in main stream media outlets, thus continuing a profound ignorance and prejudice that borders on hatred by news dissemblers toward a brilliant jurist, and perhaps in their warped minds they felt they were dealing him one final body-blow of disrespect. The Fifth Column operatives have nothing to fear in terms of reprisal regarding outrageous characterizations and misrepresentations, and it was apparent in the short obituaries and biographical accounts of Judge Bork because any forthright portrayals of his sagacity were in ultra fine print or relegated to obscure footnotes.
Imagine the uproar if a journalist was to suggest that John Kerry bears a strong resemblance to Herman Munster
It was easier for the press to regurgitate the bromidic cheap shots of the man’s visage for how he appeared during the contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearings of 1987, suggesting that he had droopy eyes, delivered legal analysis coldly and concisely, that he had an odd shaped beard, and was not telegenic. Apparently it was easier to recount those meaningless observations 25 years later than to analyze objectively the positions he advocated, and why the rejection of those astute positions has allowed the country to slouch toward Gomorrah faster than even he could have possibly imagined. To call such analysis shallow would be to raise it to an unworthy level.
Imagine the uproar if a journalist was to suggest that John Kerry bears a strong resemblance to Herman Munster, or that the President’s ears are so large he looks like a Coup de Ville with both doors open, or commented that at last Ted Kennedy hasn’t had a drink in over three years. Those points are moot with respect to dissent and would illicit outrage, so why was not some semblance of courtesy extended to a great legal mind? Just because he had a position with which one disagreed? Is such acrimony justified for a man who refused to indulge liberal whining and bravely took on the role of telling Americans that they’d have to eat their vegetables, especially from a party that champions anti-bullying, no less? The moral relativism of which Judge Bork wrote is precisely what allows simple-minded and callow lefties to rationalize an existence rife with double standards. How wretchedly vacuous.
The easily pilloried Ted Kennedy, who ironically was tossed out of the University of Virginia School of Law for cheating, led the assault on Judge Bork by stating that, “In Robert Bork’s America there is no room at the inn for blacks and no place in the Constitution for women”, though profundity and the deceased senator’s name were ever used in the same sentence. Vitriol and unfounded aspersions are often used by opponents to mask their intellectual limits, yet this superficial bellicosity found an uncommon foothold and became a rallying cry for those who believe minority status is only rectified by developing new types of discrimination against others because they are incapable of formulating workable solutions themselves.
Judge Bork was a constitutional constructionalist, a legal philosophy which puts limits on judicial “interpretation”, for he believed the shenanigans of wringing the Constitution like a dish rag or folding it like an origami student was a misinterpretation of its authors’ intent, and that the actions of the Warren Court in general along with the machinations of Justice William Brennan specifically, weren’t tangential to constitutional law but just plain wrong. He was completely against judicial activism for the same principle, for he reasoned that a position which had absolutely no chance of winning voter approval nor making it into law through the legislative process was contrary to the Constitution, and to find a friendly judge with an ideological bent that would grant the request of a minority of constituents ran contrary to the wishes of the founding fathers. Tyranny is naturally rooted in subjectivity and perverse rationale, while standards set forth for all to follow provided an objective and fair (yes, FAIR) manner in which to contemplate the greater good for everyone. And he was right.
The media and political opponents successfully misrepresented that simple premise by suggesting that Judge Bork, therefore, hated ALL minorities, and the campaign to derail had its roots in other grotesque exaggerations of his reasoning, based entirely on opposition, and in most cases bereft of logic and resting firmly in hyperbole. Bork’s interpretation that minorities and minority quotas, special recognition of sexual preference, and all women, are not in any way specifically recognized by The Constitution was skewed by his opponents to mean that he was a race monger, homophobic, and misogynistic, and those gross misrepresentations were again, untruthfully, salted through what limited acknowledgments of his passing could be found.
“To Bork” and to be “Borked” was phraseology that not only became part of the nation’s argot but was ultimately recognized as a formal part of America’s lexicon upon becoming entries in a number of dictionaries. It was re-reported after his passing that his 58-42 confirmation defeat remains the most one-sided defeat ever of a Supreme Court nominee, while conveniently not reporting that the Democrat party held a 55-45 majority in the Senate during those hearings.
The irony, of course, is the legal positions he advocated and those against which he argued was done not only with knowledge of the past, but with an eye firmly affixed on the future. He believed in the need to protect the integrity of law by adhering to its intent and not bending it like rays of light through a prism in order to satisfy the plaints of super small minorities or creating coalitions like “women” out of whole cloth, and he was correct in his assertions that the malleability of jurists not only impacted the aforementioned divisions of the population, but that indulgence had the ripple effect of unintended consequences and affected all citizens by currying favor for special interests, while the intent of the Constitution was to protect all citizens uniformly. An Amendment Process allows for change to the Constitution but there is no provision for enacting legislation from the bench, so to vilify a respected jurist for arguing the erosion of such constructs would lead to disorganization and diminish a country as opposed to elevating it is intellectually empty at best, and self-serving and narrow-minded at its worst. Further, the decline in social mores has materialized just as he predicted because a minority of special interests has been resolute that we must embrace a moral relativism wherein self-indulgence is rewarded and self-reliance is denigrated. We have collectively arrived at that juncture by taking the low road of appeasement as opposed to encouraging achievement, and our country is now steered by the embodiment of self indulgence, much to the majority’s loss at the expense of sectarian gain.
And while it is a time when everyone is accustomed to wishing others a Happy New Year, all I can say at this juncture, along with the turmoil about to hit the economy is, “Dream on.”
<span style=”background-color: #ffff99;”><strong>AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM MYCHAL:</strong></span> “Thanks for reading this article! If you enjoyed it, please sign up to receive new articles via email <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”><a href=”http://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?llr=7nx69zhab&p=oi&m=1107894918588″>by clicking here</a></span>. <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”>We HATE spam</span> as much as you do and we promise to <strong>NEVER, EVER</strong>, sell your information to anyone EVER! We will only share with you ideas and information that we feel is worthy of our subscribers. Remember, <span style=”text-decoration: underline;”><a href=”http://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?llr=7nx69zhab&p=oi&m=1107894918588″>just click here to sign up for our email alerts</a></span>. Thanks!”
google_ad_client = “ca-pub-1331918788424038”;
/* Massie Above Comment Box */
google_ad_slot = “6984544252”;
google_ad_width = 336;
google_ad_height = 280;