Robert Bork passed away today. He was the victim of one of the most viscious and dishonest personal attacks by the Left in modern American history.
He was a brilliant judge and legal scholar and a good and brave man. Our nation would have been blessed to have him serve on the Supreme Court.
He will be missed. He was a devout Catholic-- a convert. He is now with the Lord he loves.
Please pray for him and his family.
Hadn't heard about the man before, but if Egnor likes him that much it's hard to escape the conclusion that Bork must have been an awful scumbag.
ReplyDeleteAnd sure enough, it didn't take long to dig up some dirt.
ReplyDeleteYou're going to love this one, Egnor. Bork was in favor of allowing companies to require that - are you ready for this? - their female employees be sterilized, or else get sacked.
In a 1984 case called Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union v. American Cyanamid Co., 741 F.2d 444 (D.C. Cir. 1984), Bork found that the Occupational Safety and Health Act did not protect women at work in a manufacturing plant from a company policy that forced them to be sterilized -- or else lose their jobs -- because of high levels of lead in the air. The Secretary of Labor had decided that the Act's requirement that employers must provide workers "employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards" meant that American Cynamid had to "fix the workplace" through industrial clean-up rather than "fix the employees" by sterilizing or removing all women workers of child-bearing age.
Bork strongly disagreed. He wrote an opinion for his colleagues apparently endorsing the view that other clean-up measures were not necessary or possible and that the sterilization policy was, in any event, a "realistic and clearly lawful" way to prevent harm to the women's fetuses. Because the company's "fetus protection policy" took place by virtue of sterilization in a hospital -- outside of the physical workplace -- the terms of the Act simply did not apply, according to Bork. Thus, as Public Citizen put it, "an employer may require its female workers to be sterilized in order to reduce employer liability for harm to the potential children."
From here.
That of course is a morally horrendous decision, regardless of legal merits.
DeleteBork is a relatively recent convert-- hopefully this was in his atheist days, which would make sense of the decision's moral squalor.
That of course is a morally horrendous decision, regardless of legal merits.
DeleteAnd it was among many that cased his nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987 to be opposed. The "personal attacks" that you decry were mostly just a recitation of the opinions he issued during his time on the bench and the positions he took when serving as Solicitor General.
Bork converted to Catholicism in 2003, but in 1982 he married a former nun, so it seems that there was a decided religious influence in his life even when he issued the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union v. American Cyanamid opinion in 1985.
Bork can and should be criticized for the Cyanamid decision, but obviously not by the Left, who have been in bed with Planned Parenthood (Sterilization Inc. USA) and Population Control nazis (Sterilization Inc. International) for a century.
DeleteThe Left criticizing Bork for a sterilzation ruling is like Jerry Sandusky criticizing someone for spending too much time with boys.
Bork was a strong originalist, and he caustically criticized judical activism. He was right about most things, and his opponents were wrong about most things.
His career is bigger than the Cyanamid ruling, which, had it been made by a liberal judge, wouldn't have ever been noticed.
You will recall that Justice Ginsburg, darling of the left and Planned Parenthood hack, recently admitted the eugenic motivation for Roe v Wade. [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227883/ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-question-eugenics/jonah-goldberg]
The Left's response was 'yaaawnnn'.
Bork was a strong originalist, and he caustically criticized judical activism.
DeleteAnd yet he was routinely an activist arguing for legal positivism on the bench. Pretending that "originalists" aren't activists putting their own spin on the Constitution is simply putting blinders on.
Bork is a relatively recent convert-- hopefully this was in his atheist days, which would make sense of the decision's moral squalor.
DeleteYes, he must have been an atheist when he made those immoral decisions, and I'm sure he publicly apologized once he converted to Catholicism and saw the error of his old atheist ways. But I can't seem to find those apologies. Perhaps Egnor would be so good to post a link to them.
In reality, of course, Bork was a corrupt fascist scumbag that felt right at home in the authoritarian Catholic church. If hell exists, that's where he is rotting now.
All jurisprudence presupposes interpretation. Some judges make a good faith effort to interpret the law objectively, according to its black letter and original intent.
DeleteOther judges shamelessly impose their own views, without rational basis in law.
Roe v Wade is an excellent example of the latter, as was Engel v Vitale.
Fabricating law (the Constitution is silent on abortion and the general privacy "right"), or plainly misrepresenting it, is common among judicial activists, who are mostly of the left.
So just so we're clear, you would have been fine with Bork on the court for those 16 years before he became a Catholic and stopped issuing horribly immoral decisions like the one cited, yes?
DeleteBoo
Yea. He didn't make many liberal pro-sterilization decisions. It was an exception to a generally superb and ethical judicial record.
Delete[Yes, he must have been an atheist when he made those immoral decisions, and I'm sure he publicly apologized once he converted to Catholicism and saw the error of his old atheist ways. But I can't seem to find those apologies. Perhaps Egnor would be so good to post a link to them.]
DeleteHe didn't have to apologize to you. Why would he apologize for condoning sterilization to someone who supports Population Control?
[In reality, of course, Bork was a corrupt fascist scumbag that felt right at home in the authoritarian Catholic church. If hell exists, that's where he is rotting now. ]
"Corrupt" presupposes evidence. Ain't seen none.
Bork was no fascist, as he was no socialist. Fascists are on your side, comrade.
All jurisprudence presupposes interpretation. Some judges make a good faith effort to interpret the law objectively, according to its black letter and original intent.
DeleteThere is no "black letter" interpretation. That is, itself, an interpretation. Not only that, even though "originalists" spend a lot of time trying to divine the "original intent" of the founders when they framed the Constitution, they don't spend much, if any, time trying to determine if "originalism" is how the framers intended the document to be interpreted. Certainly there are several founders who would have rejected that form of interpretation out of hand.
of course, Bork was anything but "principled", as his boot-licking actions during the Watergate scandal amply demonstrate. He was presented with an opportunity to stand on principle, which two more honorable men had already done, and instead he cravenly bowed down before Nixon and took an illegal act that he had good reason to believe was in fact illegal when he took it.
"He didn't have to apologize to you."
DeleteNice little bait and switch there, Mr. Egnor.
Boo
The biggest lie about bork is that he agreed with a company that they could force women to be sterilized or be fired. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is how the distortion of his record has been so pernicious and evil. In the case, the women had already sued and won a judgment against the company under the civil rights act, which was the real remedy. bork suggested in the opnino for a UNANIMOUS court that the offering of information for women to make such a choice was not "a dangerous condition of the workplace", which was really confined to materials and processes that can negatively affect the health of workers, not mere information about a potential choice. It should be noted that Bork also suggested in his opinion that the choice could have been considered an unfair labor practice under the labor laws. It just didn't fit the meaning under OSHA, which is the only law he was asked to review it under. The decision was so clear, NOBODY APPEALED IT. The osha judge that reviewed it also agreed that the information to make the choice was not a hazard under osha. The parties even stipulated that, if the company just fired all the women, there would've been no osha violation, so how can giving them a choice to keep the job, IF THEY WANTED TO, violate osha?? Impossible. Again there were 2 other laws that bork found they could've sued under, but he was not asked to interpret/apply those. They already won on civil rights. Everybody can finally quit lying abouyt Bork's record, and let him rest in peace. The firing of Cox was something that fell upon Bork, as the two predecessors asked him to stay on and follow the president's order. Bork preferred not to do it, but he was persuaded that he had to remain and keep the justice dept intact. A court ruling stating that bork's actions in watergate were illegal WAS REVERSED AND VACATED. As a subordinate to the president, he could not disobey the order, which was in fact legal.
Delete'He is now with the Lord he loves'.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that? Christian eschatology is a veritable Augean stables of conflicting hypotheses and story telling. Doesn't John indicate that resurrection of the dead won't occur until the day of judgement, whenever that's going to happen? We're still waiting after nearly 2000 years.
Resurrection is of the body, which is for the New Heaven and Earth. There is an intermediate state of communion with the Lord, out of the body, which most Christians confess.
DeleteIt is a blessed state, in which I pray, and believe, Mr. Bork is now. I hope the same for all who pass away-- especially the victims of the Newtown shooting.
This life is a short stay in a fallen world. There is a reality beyond us, much bigger, much better, if we accept it.
Wishful thinking. Where in the Bible does it state that? Detailed theological analysis please. A little more detailed than your analysis of the Scientific American article from 2009 on DDT.
DeleteThe best book I've read on the topic is NT Wright's Surprised by Hope. If my memory serves me right, you've already refused to read Wright.
DeleteThe Intermediate State is pretty mainstream Christian theology.
Michael,
DeleteI read the free sample Amazon provides for his book on the Resurrection (volume 3). the sample ran to 150 pages. I didn't find it particularly convincing.
The argument was repetitive and the logic dubious, running to:
1. Jesus was crucified as a common criminal in a demeaning way.
2. There are no prior myths or stories of heros being executed in this way, and being resurrected.
3. Therefore Jesus was resurrected, and God exists.
I accept (1). (2) may or may not be true. Even so, it doesn't mean (3) is true. There are other explanations. The resurrection could have been symbolic/metaphorical, amongst other explanations.
So when did the intermediate state become mainstream and why?
I don't know a great deal about the history of it. The resurrection of the dead has long been understood to occur at the Last Judgement, when the saved and the lost will be given new bodies, appropriate to their state.
DeleteSome Christians have believed that we sleep until the Judgement, but most (I think) believe that we will awaken immediately after death in an intermediate disembodied state, with direct knowledge of and communion with God.
Some Christians take this in part from Jesus' promise to the good thief on the cross that 'today you will be with Me in paradise'.
NT Wright's take (in Surprised) is that the Kingdom of God is already breaking through in our good work on earth, and that it will be complete at the Resurrection of the dead.
Michael,
DeleteSo it's all just made up as time went by?
It is the best understanding of millions of people who have spent their lives contemplating and studying the matter.
DeleteWe will each find out, in his own time.
Michael,
DeleteSo of the 100 billion humans who have ever lived on Earth, including the 4 billion who aren't either Christians or Muslims, several million thinking and sucking wishful thoughts out of their thumbs trumps everything?
Anyway, you won't be disappointed, because it's impossible to be disappointed in oblivion.
So I win. If you're right, we'll never know you're right.
DeleteIf I'm right, we'll both know, although you may not be pleased with your new knowledge.
The chances of both of us saying "Mike was right!" after death are infinitely higher than the chances of us saying "bach was right!".
A variant to Pascal's wager. Are you a bettin' man?
So I win. If you're right, we'll never know you're right.
DeleteSo, you are a Catholic because it offers you the opportunity to say "nanny-nanny boo-boo, I win"?
How very mature.
I'm a Catholic because it gives me an opportunity to tell Him "Thank You".
DeleteEven though it is pretty clear that "Him" is a figment of your imagination. Good plan.
DeleteEver wondered why Jesus never explained to his followers how to produce antibiotics, like penicillin? It could quite literally have saved billions of people an early agonizing death.
DeleteHe was working on his chemistry PhD, but got interrupted.
DeleteHe decided to take the agony of billions of people on himself, instead.
Quirky.
Or maybe, like his dad, he was an early believer in population control.
DeleteInterestingly, some post apocalypse forums explain how to brew your own penicillin broth. Surely Jesus must have had an infinite-speed future internet connection and could have looked it up? It all boggles the mind...
He was working on his chemistry PhD, but got interrupted.
DeleteOh, so Jesus, as God incarnate, would have had to study chemistry to be able to understand antibiotics? Pretty wimpy.
Michael,
DeleteNo, I'm not a betting man. I'm going for the sure proposition. There's no god(s). There's no evidence. The propositions of religion are incoherent.