Robert Bork Dead at 84

mikedenk said:
It's not about being "bad" or "good".

I contend that all the SCOTUS justices, to some extent, produce ideology-driven results. It's human nature.
Click to expand...
From Nina Totenberg's story here:
He opposed the Supreme Court's one man, one vote decision on legislative apportionment.

He wrote an article opposing the 1964 civil rights law that required hotels, restaurants and other businesses to serve people of all races.

He opposed a 1965 Supreme Court decision that struck down a state law banning contraceptives for married couples. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution, Bork said.

And he opposed Supreme Court decisions on gender equality, too.
Click to expand...

n his book Slouching Towards Gomorrah, he inveighed against liberals, premarital sex and working mothers. "A decline runs across our entire culture," he wrote, "and the rot is spreading."
Click to expand...


It was about being "bad".

Daredelvis
 
A modest correction: Initial reports of Bork's death gave his age as 84. Later reports say he was 85.
 
mikedenk said:
It's not about being "bad" or "good".
Click to expand...

I suggest you re-read Brown's comment that you quoted and replied to. Here's the snippet again:
Bork evidenced a result-oriented and ideology-driven approach that would have made him a bad justice who would have dispensed bad justice.
Click to expand...




mikedenk said:
I contend that all the SCOTUS justices, to some extent, produce ideology-driven results. It's human nature.
Click to expand...

At any rate, the same tu quoque issue applies if you're only treating this as the claim that Bork would have been an ideology-driven Supreme Court justice. To defend that claim it is not necessary to defend the claim that no other Supreme Court nominee has also been ideology-driven.

The quoque in tu quoque means "also".

Again, I suggest you read up on this logical fallacy since you are sticking to your tu quoque argument.

ETA: In simplest terms, observations about other nominees are irrelevant to a claim about Bork. Even if those observations are true, they do not refute the claim that Bork would have made a bad Supreme Court justice. Since they are irrelevant, we have no need of examining the truth value of them.

Another way of looking at it is as the two wrongs make a right fallacy. Even if everyone else is doing it (and I'm not conceding that point--just showing you that it's irrelevant) it still doesn't make it right.
 
Last edited:
Well I sure am glad that Bork (just one of the many Nixion flunkies) did not get on the US Supreme Court.
 
Just being the executioner in the Saturday Night Massacre was sufficient to ban him from future politics.
 
They're reporting that when Bork arrived at the gates of heaven, God excused himself and whispered something to Jesus. Then Jesus excused himself and whispered something to the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost then said "I don't mind doing it; Bork, you're getting the boot. No heaven for you." There's a guy like that in every organization.
 
TragicMonkey said:
They're reporting that when Bork arrived at the gates of heaven, God excused himself and whispered something to Jesus. Then Jesus excused himself and whispered something to the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost then said "I don't mind doing it; Bork, you're getting the boot. No heaven for you." There's a guy like that in every organization.
Click to expand...

Your story implies that there was something morally or ethically wrong with what the Holy Ghost agreed to do.

Daredelvis
 
Let's not forget that the drunken, philandering, half-wit, murderer, Ted Kennedy, did a hatchet-job on Bork's nomination. So Bork must have had some redeeming qualities.
 
stevea said:
Let's not forget that the drunken, philandering, half-wit, murderer, Ted Kennedy, did a hatchet-job on Bork's nomination. So Bork must have had some redeeming qualities.
Click to expand...

Wow, now that's a logic that's hard to digest. Because you, personally, don't like the horribly flawed, corrupt jerk who was Ted Kennedy, and Ted Kennedy didn't like Robert Bork, therefore Robert Bork was a good guy... That's your logic.

It's flawed, it's a fallacy, and you offered nothing to this discussion beyond a deliberate attempt at excusing Bork's positions.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Another way of looking at it is as the two wrongs make a right fallacy. Even if everyone else is doing it (and I'm not conceding that point--just showing you that it's irrelevant) it still doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

This is the false equivelency that we were repeatedly offered during the presidential campaign in regard to Obama, when Romney would say something obviously hateful and clueless.

It's the latest sales tactic for the lunatic right.
 
jj said:
Wow, now that's a logic that's hard to digest. Because you, personally, don't like the horribly flawed, corrupt jerk who was Ted Kennedy, and Ted Kennedy didn't like Robert Bork, therefore Robert Bork was a good guy... That's your logic.

It's flawed, it's a fallacy, and you offered nothing to this discussion beyond a deliberate attempt at excusing Bork's positions.
Click to expand...

No - it's pure counterpoint to all the Bork-hate & distortion on this forum.
Most comments here personal, flawed and fallacious just as my hyperbolic comments abt Kennedy.
I disdain the liberal penchant for beating on the recently dead - it's disgusting.

Sorry - irony is hard to convey in posts.
 
Last edited:
stevea said:
Let's not forget that the drunken, philandering, half-wit, murderer, Ted Kennedy, did a hatchet-job on Bork's nomination. So Bork must have had some redeeming qualities.
Click to expand...

stevea said:
No - it's pure counterpoint to all the Bork-hate & distortion on this forum.
Most comments here personal, flawed and fallacious just as my hyperbolic comments abt Kennedy.
I disdain the liberal penchant for beating on the recently dead - it's disgusting.

Sorry - irony is hard to convey in posts.
Click to expand...

stevea said:
Brilliant rebuttal, reminiscent of Monty Python's Argument Clinic,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
- welcome to my ignore list.
Click to expand...
Still failing to see the "connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition" here. Or is this just a clinic on fallacious arguments?


Daredelvis
 
stevea said:
No - it's pure counterpoint to all the Bork-hate & distortion on this forum.
Most comments here personal, flawed and fallacious just as my hyperbolic comments abt Kennedy.
I disdain the liberal penchant for beating on the recently dead - it's disgusting.

Sorry - irony is hard to convey in posts.
Click to expand...

Again, here are some of Bork's plain-spoken, honest opinions (taken from an NPR site):

He opposed the Supreme Court's one man, one vote decision on legislative apportionment.

He wrote an article opposing the 1964 civil rights law that required hotels, restaurants and other businesses to serve people of all races.

He opposed a 1965 Supreme Court decision that struck down a state law banning contraceptives for married couples. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution, Bork said.

And he opposed Supreme Court decisions on gender equality, too.

I also seem to recall that he believed Congress had no authority to make laws limiting monopolies.

So, tell me, do you agree with any of these positions taken by Robert Bork? Note that objections to these expressed views of his are in no way personal.
 
stevea said:
No - it's pure counterpoint to all the Bork-hate & distortion on this forum.
Most comments here personal, flawed and fallacious just as my hyperbolic comments abt Kennedy.
I disdain the liberal penchant for beating on the recently dead - it's disgusting.

Sorry - irony is hard to convey in posts.
Click to expand...

Then provide some examples of flawed and fallacious personal comments. Mose of what I have seen here are accurate examples of Bork's repugnant views. You, on the other hand, have only made accusations about Kennedy's character, and have made no contribution that could be seen as supporting a positive view of Bork.

Welcome to my whiny delusional right-wingers with a persecution complex list.

Daredelvis
 
An interesting article on Bork.

Think Progress said:
There are many reasons why Bork was clearly ill-suited to the Supreme Court, but he was also an intellectual giant with a keen understanding of both political and judicial process. At his best, Bork was a voice for the kind of judicial restraint that conservatives all but abandoned the minute President Obama took office. Progressives will find little to like in Slouching Towards Gomorrah — which is, at it’s heart, a rejection of cultural modernity — but Bork is right to warn in that book against an ideology that “think democracy is tyranny and government by judges is freedom.” Bork intended those words as an attack on social liberals, but they aptly describe the kind of conservatism that would declare Obamacare unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom