Remembering Bork, and the borkings we’ve endured since

Kyle is at it again. . .complaining about all of the uncivil discourse in our politics. Well, you repugs and some dems got what you wanted. Uncivil discourse will continue as long as there is “no holds bar” attitude toward mistreating an opponent and flooding the campaigns with so much money from third party operatives.

I do not know what the “cure” is, but this business of crying wolf all of the time, this “DOA” attitude towards new legislation originating from the opposite party and proclaiming that President Obama will be a one-term President [despite the wishes of 56% of the voting public] does not help on bit. The SCOTUS and its installment of Dubya as President didn’t help one bit. The systemic attempt to purge voters from the voting rolls on the pretense of voter fraud is just that, a fraud on the American public. So what’s your beef? Except maybe WE are finally fighting back.

You write about Bork; what about Anita Hill and all of the other good, well-educated women who have tried to make a career in public service, only to find themselves “borked” by men with sexist and demeaning attitudes [yes, Hiliary is included]. Palin got what her republican party has given to all others; so stop gripping. What goes around, comes around, for all of us, moneybags included.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh snap, Rockerbabe!

• Link
• Report this comment

Rockerbabe — two thumbs up!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

Its Funny that Kyle would find a way to lay the divide in politics at the feet of the Dems……How about refusing to lay blame for what started it and lets start calling out those in BOTH PARTIES that won’t rise above the pettiness and do whats right for America????

• Link
• Report this comment

I still remember the Lion of the Senate asking Bord a loaded question and then getting up and leaving before he could answer. What a statesman.

• Link
• Report this comment

I read from Kyle’s article that neither Republicans nor Democrats are lily-white when it comes to “borking”. After reading the responses so far, I repeat what I said recently to another columnist, “You need a better class of bloggers.”

• Link
• Report this comment

This dumb@$$ was ok with poll taxes. He thought Nixon’s attempted end-run around Watergate investigations was legal. It was a complete slap in the face he was ever considered, much less put forth as someone who should be sitting on the Supreme Court.

Buy a clue, Kyle: don’t launch a nuke by nominating guys with 14th century thinking and they won’t get Borked.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle

Appreciate the thoughtful response. By saying behind closed doors, I mean that the demonization was not as “in your face” and blatant as it is now. Before then, you had the usual underhanded things such as using the rumor mill and such to undercut candidates. The point of doing such was the same as it is now which is to try to grow your base to the point of having a dominant majority that would be hard to defeat.

Growing up in Alabama, I remember Republicans attempting to use Wallace’s past against him when he ran for governor in the early 1980’s. I also remember Democrats painting Republicans in negative connotation to keep the minority vote back then. Neither party is without fault, but the ultimate failure is in the voters themselves. Until we force politicians to change for the better, we’ll continue down the same road. I also completely agree with your 12:59 post.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle Wingfield
October 28th, 2011
12:52 pm

Remember….I wasn’t the ONLY one who thought Bork was a terrible candidate for SCOTUS….

From wiki….:

A hotly contested United States Senate debate over Bork’s nomination ensued, partly fueled by strong opposition by civil and women’s rights groups concerned with Bork’s stated desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts, and his opposition to the right of the Federal government to impose standards of voting fairness upon the states. Bork is one of only three Supreme Court nominees to ever be opposed by the ACLU.Bork was also criticized for being an “advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy,” as demonstrated by his role in the Saturday Night Massacre.

To pro-choice legal groups, Bork’s originalist views and his belief that the Constitution does not contain a general “right to privacy” were viewed as a clear signal that, should he become a Justice on the Supreme Court, he would vote to reverse the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade

• Link
• Report this comment

I can’t believe you have the balls to post this crap.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, You and others in your positon have a platform to rail against this type of foolishness…..I don’t know what your readership is, but I would be willing to bet that If you took a consistant stand against this type of retoric when it comes for either side teh tone could be made more civil… Don’t get me wrong, I am in complete favor of extensive debate when its done in a productive fashion, and I believe that debate among the general populace can and should occur, But when the hook is baited and the read meat is tossed into into the fray…well this is what happens…..

• Link
• Report this comment

Enter your comments here

• Link
• Report this comment

Brad posted on the wrong AJC blog, Kyle. His comment is so suitable to other members of the editorial staff.

• Link
• Report this comment

Not a very interesting topic Kyle….

• Link
• Report this comment

What comes to my mind is the reprehensible treatment of Max Cleland by Saxby Chambliss. I’m not sure I would pee on him if he was on fire. Of course, his “bad knee” would keep him from getting too close to a fire, anyway.

• Link
• Report this comment

Independent…really I am

No, I don’t think you are. Too much evidence against you.

• Link
• Report this comment

I suppose Billy became the “bane” of your existence?

I had forgotten about the Bork confirmation hearings. That was mild compared to what goes on today (as you pointed out with the Biden example).

• Link
• Report this comment

“You write about Bork; what about Anita Hill and all of the other good, well-educated women who have tried to make a career in public service, only to find themselves “borked” by men with sexist and demeaning attitudes [”

Sorry, Rockerbabe, your premise is false. Anita Hill did not “try to make a career in public service and find herself borked” as you say. Anita Hill decided to get involved in the hearings of Clarence Thomas confirmation and make charges she couldn’t prove. And I wish desperately that I could remember the name of the brilliant AA gentlemen that testified about Anita Hill (last name Daggett?) and how she had pursued him despite his repeated requests for her to quit. His testimony, in my mind, shredded her claims….

• Link
• Report this comment

found it…his name is John Doggett

• Link
• Report this comment

Rockerbabe defends women but not Palin. What a joke. Hypocrite.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle…See War Eagles’ 1:46..This Is what I mean when i comment of foolishness that only serves to whip the extreme right into a tizzy….You have a platform to refute this BS, But yet you don’t…

• Link
• Report this comment

Rockerbabe,

There is an enormous difference between political campaigns, sloganizing, being combative in the area and then going to the floor of the Senate or in committee and doing it there. There needs to be again a distinction between campaigning and governing.

Campaigning can and should be hot and heavy. Governing should be sober, cautious, optimistic and constructive.

It’s no surprise we have Ted Kennedy and the modern Democrat party to thank for the beginning of the end of government as it should be.

• Link
• Report this comment

Nixon, the NRA’s modus operandi of over-the-top-rhetoric on any issue involving guns, Gingrinch’s lexicon of insulting and slandering adjectives to describe members of the opposite party, 8 years of investigating and trying to destroy Clinton’s presidency, the supreme court’s involvment in Bush’s election, the concerted attempt to destroy Obama from day one…. yeah Republicans have really been victimised for sooo long.

• Link
• Report this comment

UGA…I have only been specific about todays’ post…I have also said that extremism rhetoric is a cancer regardless of which side of the debate it comes from….Political difference is good…Name calling and venomous insults are not….

• Link
• Report this comment

UGA

Prove what?
—————-
Independent…

When you come to a conservative blog, just about the only one at AJC, and start telling the journalist how to debate much better, you are either a liberal or one who thinks too highly of their own opinion.

Kyle consistenly writes a balanced comment which almost makes him an independent. But some are not interested in a balanced viewpoint and yearn only for the “red meat” you describe.

I find here a balance between rational and “red meat”. Go ahead and present YOUR viewpoint on the subject. Nobody is stopping you.

• Link
• Report this comment

If you think Kyle’s blogs don’t always carry a subtle and often not-so-subtle indictment of Democrats, then your “balance” is another man’s red meat, Dusty.

• Link
• Report this comment

Independant….are you scared of freedom of speech? Are you that soft hearted?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty

I’d disagree with the Kyle as independent for one reason. An independent would be both critical of the bad and approving of the good in both parties. I haven’t seen Kyle as approving of anything Democratic judging by his recent posts. I’ll add that I have not read every post that Kyle has written in his time here at the AJC. Kyle would be more representative of a moderate conservative, if anything, in my opinion. There’s nothing wrong with that at all though, as I am more likely to agree more with moderates of either party instead of the hardcore party loyalists.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle I understand that you can’t nor should you be the comment police, But There are ALWAYS comments that do more to set the debate back or to steer it down a path that takes away from anything productive……. Which takes us back to today’s post…. Until we expect and DEMAND more, political discourse and the dicussions that go along with it will continue to swirl around the toilet…

• Link
• Report this comment

Poor Aquagirl,

Still firing shots at a “religious” Reagan (never thought of him that way). Then admitting there was a “deluge” of hate (obviously) from Democrats against Bork. Then totally surprised that someone noticed that the hate did indeed come from DEMOCRATS.

I’m glad you are in water and not in law or the field of visual acuity.

• Link
• Report this comment

Folks – Aquagirl voted for Reagan and wouldn’t have voted for Ted Kennedy to be dogcatcher. Give her some slack would ya?

• Link
• Report this comment

then your “balance” is another man’s red meat, Dusty.

You’ll have to excuse Dusty, she hasn’t been the same since her #1 prez of all time went back to Texas.

Not that she started out with much capacity for evaluation, considering she thinks Bush was a brilliant guy who saved the free world.

• Link
• Report this comment

Independant….Hey going 9-2 we can talk about it all you want….

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle…amen brother.

• Link
• Report this comment

Southern…I agree but there is a mentality of excellence with certain schools.

• Link
• Report this comment

Now now AquaGirl

Don’t get flustered. I do miss Prez Bush considering what is considered presidential now. I don’t happen to be a “blind” democrat who cannot see anything wrong with the way our country is going economically and politically.

Bush pushed us forward after 9/11. That I appreciate. Obviously Obama did too although he promised to do the exact opposite. He did not.

Go ahead. Tell us how great the economy, the budget, the debt are after almost three years. Yeah, I know. Bush did it.

The rotary mind of liberals is amazing. The same old lines over and over deflecting blame from its obvious source.

• Link
• Report this comment

One of your better columns Kyle.

I watched the “replay” of the Judge Bork hearings every night after work (CSPAN). Usually I was seething.

I am one of those who believes that, per the Constitution, the President gets his choice of appointing Justices of the Court as a reward of being elected. The Senate role is just to make sure the nominee is not a dog; judicial philosophy is not a criteria for Senate objection.

I was also seething when Republicans rejected Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers for the Court.
It is the President’s choice. Republicans objected on the grounds of judicial philosophy. Miers was a conservative, but not the “messiah in waiting” that was Judge Alito. I am still seething.

Back to the subject. Kyle is correct on this one. The Judge Bork hearings dissolved into a simple case of “dehumanizing” Bork. The same things happened with the Republican “dehumanizing” of Anita Hill. And we still do it today. And it has become something of an art form. The Bork-Hill dehumanizing was blatant with no pretensions of nicety. And the American voter continues to fall for the scams.

So what kind of Justice would Bork have made? Ten years or so after the hearings Judge Bork was interviewed by Larry King on CNN. The question was “what about the controversy over the 2nd Amendment?” Bork’s answer was ” the 2nd Amendment is a militia amendment and has nothing to do with the right of an individual to keep and bear arms”.(The quotes are from memory)

And I thought – damn, maybe Kennedy was right after all.

• Link
• Report this comment

Independant….not only do I disagree with you….but ESPN does as well. They have #34 as the best college football player of all time. Again you lose.

• Link
• Report this comment

well…let us not disagree.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle I know this is your blog and you are paid to stir the pot but….. come on man !!!!!!!!!!

“Anyone who wonders why Americans lack faith in our institutions, and despair that there’s no solution in sight, would do well to remember what happened to Robert Bork some 24 years ago.”

remember Jan Kemp
remember “Jim Crow laws”
remember the Voting Rights Act
remember the the Wall Street Bailout
remember the auto industry bailout
remember the legalization of PACS
remember Corporate Welfare at the expense of the Taxpayer
remember Social Welfare at the expense of the Taxpayer

• Link
• Report this comment

I agree that the trashing of Bork was a dark moment in America’s political history. I agreed with rejecting his nomination because of his extreme legal opinions, but Kennedy and others just started smearing him instead of objecting to his judicial philosophy and record. Good column, Kyle.

• Link
• Report this comment

Southern….you guys have a good game coming up against LSU. BTW…Nick Saban is by far the best coach in football today. College or Pro.

• Link
• Report this comment

I agree with an earlier poster who points out that both Nocera and Wingfield conveniently leave out Bork’s role in the Nixon-era Saturday Night Massacre. That was a time to stand up and be counted on the side of justice, and Bork didn’t do it. That mattered in what people thought of him in 1987, and it should have.

But having said that, I remember the time well and there is a lot of truth in what Nocera has to say. Our side let the genie out of the bottle.

However, it would be hugely inaccurate to throw up our hands now and say the Democrats started it and now everybody does it. One party, starting with Newt Gingrich, has made this scorched earth approach not just an isolated tactic but central to its political strategy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty

You’ve read most of what I’ve posted here at the AJC, but that is not a comprehensive representative of my positions on everything. I don’t consider myself a Democrat any more than I consider myself a Republican. I do, however, think about each and every issue before making my choice. It’s usually a choice between one who will do little versus one who will do even less most of the time. One thing you will never hear me say/do is tow the party line for either group. That is what makes one a Democrat or Republican.

Kyle might not be so firm on everything Republican, but I have not seen him enthusiastic about anything Democratic. That’s the difference between being a moderate versus an independent. I have no problem with saying that I agreed with some of Bush II’s programs/policies. I disagreed with some too. There’s things that I both agree and disagree with Obama on. I just don’t singularly preach the praises of either without also preaching the shortcomings.

• Link
• Report this comment

Southern….I think people make judgements regarding the presidency based on the overall term. There will always be decisions that we agree an disagree with, but you have to look at the ideology of the person and their overall record.

• Link
• Report this comment

UGA..Not a fan of either…I was just poking at you….

• Link
• Report this comment

Southern….yep, if I were a fan of Bama or LSU I would drive over there.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle,

I appreciate your willingness to debate the liberals here, but as you see there’s no point. They’ll call you every invective in the book, then blame you for them doing it. Something I learned blogging during the Bush years.

Let’s be clear, incivility in politics is nothing new, although these days it’s at a fever pitch. Difference is Republicans can and do call each other out for incivility (sometimes unnecessarily). Democrats consistently show they’re unwilling to, probably because such language is S.O.P. on that side. Don’t believe me? Just read their posts.

• Link
• Report this comment

Southern…I think we have seen enough of Obama to get a pretty good judgement. Four more years not needed.

• Link
• Report this comment

You talk about civility on your blog, and yet you allow Lil’ Barry Bailout to spew nothing but venom on your blog. How many times has he said “Idiot Messiah”, “Obozo”, called liberals “scum”, “libtards”, etc.? So either you agree with him, or you don’t really care to have civility on this thread. Self-policing? Uh-huh.

• Link
• Report this comment

Southern….I agree to some extent. However when you look Obama’s ideology throughout his political and adult life you can see a pattern of behavior and ideas that are very scary.

I can tell you that you wil not increase spending in any sector by increasing taxes.

• Link
• Report this comment

Southern….A GOP appeaser???? Reallly? WOW. I am not saying that McCain would have been much better but there are a few things that I know he would NOT have done.

In some cases you are right. Obama has no balls and the shame is that the Dems are losing, the Repubs and losing and the American people are losing the most.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle Wingfield

October 28th, 2011
3:02 pm
“dixiedemons: I wasn’t saying Bork was the only reason. But I do think it’s worth thinking about that episode when we wonder why things are going wrong.”

I would say that incivilty started with the Impeachment of Nixon. The guy deserved it, but the Republican base was so butt-hurt by it that I believe it to be the original source of deep seated resentment that they hold for every Democratic office holder, a resentment passed down to your generation.

You might also consider Tip O’Niell’s decision not to pursue the impeachment of President Reagan for Iran-Contra for the good of the country. Newt Gingrich could easily have chosen to follow in such footsteps, but didn’t. Nancy Pelosi, however, did.

• Link
• Report this comment

finger not finder

• Link
• Report this comment

SoCo

If I understand your point correctly, I think I’d agree with you on Obama. Whether people agree with his positions or not, he doesn’t get out there and sell his ideas; he doesn’t lead. He’s supposed to be a great speaker and communicator but when his programs fail, he falls back on “the people don’t understand what we’re trying to do”. That’s his job; make 51% or more understand and buy into it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Southern…… Was Obama being an appeaser when….

He pushed through Obamacare?
The ACA was a sell-out of the American public to the healthcare industry. It does nothing to curb healthcare costs, but it gives insurance companies limitless customers to jack prices up on. To top things off, everyone will be required to carry insurance.

Attempted to close Gitmo?
Early in his administration, he tried to do what he thought was right. He became an appeaser when he backed down from his stance that it should be closed. That was the beginning of his gummi-spined leadership.

Pushed for civilian trials for terrorists?
And how did that push turn out?? Appeased the GOP with no trials.

Pressing to raise taxes on the rich?
Has any tax increase on the rich passed yet? Gave in to the GOP again…

Sued Arizona over immigration laws?
Sued other states too. Parts of the laws have still been allowed to be enacted. ICE deportations were up to almost 400k this year too. Seems like he got tough on deportation instead of doing the “liberal” thing of granting amnesty.

Spent more money at this point in his campaign than any other president?
Don’t know what that has to do with appeasement other than he’s putting money back into the economy to create jobs in relation to his campaign.

Had the S&P credit rating downgraded?
From the reading of the report, that was more to the condition of DC itself and the inability of Congress to do their job. His lack of forceful leadership is his appeasement to the GOP’s desire to dictate the direction of DC.

Cap and Trade?
Have you seen anybody mention it lately? Appeasement by dropping it…

Balancing the budget?
I seem to recall Obama throwing Democrats under the bus when he put “entitlements” on the table while dealing with Boehner.

We can do this all day, and I can continue to show Obama’s lack of spine and his giving in to the GOP.

HD

That’s my point exactly. Thank you for stating it in a manner that I didn’t. Maybe that will clear it up for UGA and others.

• Link
• Report this comment

The biggest problem of Kyle’s lament for today is that history has proven the decision to keep Bork off the bench was a correct decision…

• Link
• Report this comment

I would say that incivilty started with the Impeachment of Nixon.

I think we’re all giving way too much credit to our politicians. They reflect our society, not make it.

An excellent view on our social breakdown is Bowling Alone By Robert Putnam. We’re more mobile and increasingly isolated from others. We tend to stick with “our kind” and it’s not always racial division. This makes us less tolerant of those who don’t share our ideology.

When we see other Americans as the true threat to our way of life something is seriously broken.

Of course UGA grads will never grasp these concepts.

• Link
• Report this comment

Incivility in politics has flared up at the Bork confirmation hearings, but to claim that it started a new era is both historically wrong and simplistic.

What is ironic about Kyle’s article is that his own blog often degenerates into exchanges of insults, and Kyle either cannot or does not want to do anything about it.

• Link
• Report this comment

HD @ 4:36

AMEN!!!

• Link
• Report this comment

The same could be said of his collegue, across the aisle, and he has also written columns similar to this one.

Jay? I have the idea you don’t hang there anymore because of some a-hole, but I can’t agree the posting is as wide-open as it is here.

Matter of fact, the Friday group hug is in progress. Having the regulars relax over a mutual interest de-fangs people. For a minute anyhow.

• Link
• Report this comment

MarkV

I’m not quite following your statement that politics is the art of the possible. Are you saying that Obama could possibly pull off some ultra liberal policy in the current political climate? Obama’s fate was sealed as soon as he took the oath of office. Look at the national dialogue and see who’s actually controlled it. The Democratic Party can not even put together a coherent message, so there’s little to no chance that they could enact any liberal policy. They couldn’t manage to do it when they held control of both houses of Congress.

• Link
• Report this comment

Southern Comfort @5:27 pm

I think you are putting your finger on at least part of the problem. Obama is not the Democratic party. He may be an official leader of the party, but he is not a dictator, who could unilaterally make things happen. We could go on into all the reasons why some Democrats do what they do, but my point is that you have accused Obama of “giving in,” when in many of those cases he did not have the support he needed to succeed.

• Link
• Report this comment

Robert Bork was no hero. The system worked when the Senate declined to confirm his Supreme Court nomination.

For those too young to remember, Robert Bork carried out Richard Nixon’s order to fire the Watergate special prosecutor in 1973 after his two bosses, more principled men, refused the order and resigned. Bork was a thug and a traitor.

• Link
• Report this comment

I think Bork was an instance in which the conservatives pushed their position too far, giving rise to all the hostility. The killer for me was his naked assertion that there was no constitutional right to privacy. Having someone like that on the Supreme Court would have been far, far worse than nine Clarence Thomases.

Now, dozens of court nominees fail to merit even an up or down vote. It’s a plain fact: this country is governed by the Supreme Court, not Congress. Constitutionality is whatever a majority of the Supreme Court says it is, and the determination is governed by political beliefs. So much for the idiot who taught my business law class and asserted that court decisions are not influenced by political beliefs. Is it any wonder that most federal court nominations languish in Congress till they die of inaction?

And so we can expect a continuation of the cut-and-slash brand of consideration of federal court nominees. Given what’s at stake, it’s hard to blame the parties. Members of the Judiciary Committee know that they’re not conferring a lifetime appointment on an impartial arbiter.

• Link
• Report this comment

The SCOTUS needs to watch Obama closely.

Barack Obama wants everyone to know that he’s the president, and by golly he’s getting impatient. “We can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job,” he told a Las Vegas crowd Monday. “I’ve told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions we can take without Congress.”

In his zeal to get reelected, he just may step out of bounds.

• Link
• Report this comment

From Bill Daley, Obama’s Chief of Staff to the left’s “tender” ears:

On the domestic side, both Democrats and Republicans have really made it very difficult for the president to be anything like a chief executive.

Not one part…BOTH!!!!

Absurdum est ut alios regat, qui seipsum regere nescit.

• Link
• Report this comment

The other incident that kicked off the current hyperpartisan atmosphere was the GOP winning the House and Senate in 1994. That still makes the Democrat party insane, and they’ve been taking it out on Americans ever since.

• Link
• Report this comment

Isn’t Jeff Dickerson a complete moron?

• Link
• Report this comment

You can’t make up these OWS stories…perverts.
——–

A neighboring hotel’s staff alleged voiced concerns about having to recently escort hotel employees to and from bus stops late at night due to inappropriate behavior, such as public masturbation, from street protesters.

• Link
• Report this comment

Stopped reading 2/3rds through….poor babies..repubs are faultless and good…liberals are bad…same old crap!

• Link
• Report this comment

The Supreme Court has become so political to the point it fails to serve as the separate unique equal branch of government as it was designed and indented to functionally exist in our Republic. “Judicial Discretion” once meant to to temper our laws, has become the “Legislative Option” that now to often writes and re-writes the law.

Does the ideology in practice of so-called Borking continue. Does any memory of the Justice Alito’s wife tearfully enduring the excoriation of her husband fit your idea of a Borking, Kyle?

It fits in my opinion.

Hopefully Chief Justice John Roberts analogy of comparing his role to that of an Umpire calling balls and strikes as applicable to things in legal question as he sees them to be either fair or foul of the law as it is written will turn the judiciary away from exercising any “Legislative Option” in lieu of a proper measure of “Judicial Discretion”.

• Link
• Report this comment

Oh lord ragnar, with these radical leftwingers who regularly frequent this blog only to attack Kyle as though they can change everyone’s opinions simply by their pathetic bombastic fascist-socialist denunciations of him and his far often well reasoned points of view, have so long ago – “in their minds only” – moved the political center of politics, that any thought, how ever so slightly right of Pravda would be called extreme hardcore rightwing terroristic propaganda.

I really don’t give them, their lame ideas and vitriolic ad hominin attacks any serious attention, as I’ve found in so doing it only lends them relevance, when they are best left to their rightful place in obscurity.

• Link
• Report this comment

Very good article. I don’t know what the answer to uncivil discourse is, and I doubt that anyone else does. Just look at some of these responses. Does uncivil discourse magicaly become civil discourse if it is being used to savage uncivil discourse? Does the mathematical law that “two negatives equal a positive” apply here? There are clearly those who believe that. They do not know or think that they believe it, but their words demonstrate that they do, and thereby they unwittingly nurture, support, and add to the problem. And, as a fan of cable news (I watch Fox, but also CNN and MSNBC), it would be hypocritical of me not to acknowledge that the uncivil discourse utilized and championed by one of my favorites (O’Reilly) along with several others, both liberal and conservative, exacerbate the problem — that and the unrelenting, never pausing, never cooling off, ratings hungry 24/7 cable news cycle. O’Reilly claims he does it to cut off the BS and spin and force politicians and pundits to respond to the issues and questions at hand rather than using interviews as a launch pad for their programmed and unrelated message for that particular day — as politicans and others with their own agendas are often wont to do. But, more and more, I am not sure that the harsh and discourteous discourse necessary to keep the pols and pundits honest and on point is worth it. And as you noted, the origin of this was the Bork hearings, so it has had a long time to cook and to evolve, or perhaps “devolve” would be more correct here.

• Link
• Report this comment

ragnar: “That is the new code for “leftist” since they have already fouled “socialist,” “progressive,” “liberal,” and “pragmatist.””

A true leftist position scorns the “centrist” label as a cop-out fake, masking a sell out to the enemy.

• Link
• Report this comment

The cure for incivility is to return complete control of the federal government to the Democrat party and their friends in the media.

As G.H.W. Bush would say, “na ga da”. We won’t go back. Deal with it, Democrats and wussy civility-mongers.

• Link
• Report this comment

Enter your comments here

• Link
• Report this comment

I wouldn’t have put it that way.

• Link
• Report this comment

“At Robert Bork’s confirmation hearing to be Solicitor General, he defended the poll tax struck down in Harper v. Virginia, saying, ”It was a very small tax, it was not discriminatory, and I doubt that it had much impact on the welfare of the nation one way or the other.” In his 1987 confirmation hearing, he held firm to this view, stating, ”It was just a $1.50 poll tax” (committee print draft, page 129).]”

New York Times 1987 October 23

Common sense tells us a poll tax will act to suppress voting, in general, but especially that of the young and the poor. Being a judge isn’t just about interpreting badly written laws, it is about fairness and justice for ALL.

• Link
• Report this comment

@ Doc- If you think Justice Sotomayor is about fairness and justice for ALL you got a problem. In fact, not that I favor a poll tax, since I’m not a tax favorable person to begin with, I have to say you are reaching with your statement if you infer that a $1.50 tax would, especially prevent or suppress the poor and young from voting to any great extent in this country. C’mon Doc… a buck fifty won’t pay the tax on a pack of cigarettes today.

Nah, Doc, I’m not buying what you are saying. First, justice my friend, often has very little to do with F-A-I-R-N-E-S-S. The concern is more about the simple right or wrong or if harm is done to person or property.

Particularly because you used the word “fairness” in your statement is what brought me out to confront you with Justice Sotomayor who in my opinion is clearly a bigot despite this obumer empathy bunk that anointed her, by which means her superior ethnocentric wisdom (racism) as she proclaims makes her a better judge than what she calls white men if my memory serves me correctly. In this case clearly justice took or rather was forced to take a back seat to serve what some consider fairness. Not one liberal if they were honest and didn’t lie to protect the socialist liberal agenda would say a white male could have made the same bigoted Sotomayor statement and still have been appointed to sit on the Supreme Court. It would happen Doc, I know it and you know it. Her appointment was politically motivated (Et al October 29th, 2011
8:53 am), it was not in the interest of serving fairness and justice for ALL.

This idea or idiom of FAIRNESS when you get right down to it suppresses equal justice and if fairness is now the legal canon I”ll let you answer this question using your fairness logic in regards to voting and taxes. Ready Doc?

I’m a man of meager means that pays a very modest amount of income taxes; whereas, many others I can assure you pay far more income tax than I, like say, my employer. Given these facts should my vote be counted and credited the same as that of my employer? Shouldn’t my employer’s vote count several more times than mine since my employer pays several more times the amount of tax? Remember Doc, you have to be fair, not simply serve the UNFAIRNESS of justice?

Justice Doc, is what rightly prevents a poll tax, not FAIRNESS or empathy.

Nah Doc, you liberals can leave this notion of “equal fairness” out of your “living constitution” that’s being foisted to replace the written one. Most of us find the actual “equality clause” that assures each of us equal justice under the 14th amendment written in the Constitution very acceptable, when it is actually put into practice.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Welcome @ 1:22, good morning, I think you err. “A true leftist position scorns the “centrist” label as a cop-out fake, masking a sell out to the enemy.” Quite the contrary, a “true” leftist loves nothing but power, and will use any deception to take it and to hold on to it. Thus the ever shifting labels they use, to keep the voters from realizing their “true” colors. Contrast the label “conservative,” one that even daring leftists try (usually futilely) to embrace [e.g., "fiscal conservative."]

• Link
• Report this comment

ragnar danneskjold

October 30th, 2011
8:46 am
***Quite the contrary, a “true” leftist loves nothing but power, and will use any deception to take it and to hold on to it. Thus the ever shifting labels they use, to keep the voters from realizing their “true” colors. Contrast the label “conservative,” one that even daring leftists try (usually futilely) to embrace [e.g., "fiscal conservative."] ***

More projection from the right. Witness them running away from the label “republican” to “conservative”, then to “libertarian” as the idiots they elect besmirch each label in turn with their desperate clinging to ideological purity, despite ample proof to all except them that their ideas are morally bankrupt and hopelessly ineffective for dealing with reality.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Say @ 10:58, your use of “projection” suggests you do not understand it. The conservatives all clamor to “out-conservative” each other, and the so-called moderate democrats endeavor to obtain some credibility by calling themselves “fiscal conservatives.” The libertarians – full disclosure, I am more libertarian with a small “L” than I am a conservative – often regard themselves as even more conservative than the conservatives. The leftists surely have no equivalently-disparaging label than “RINO,” which conservatives use against pretenders.

In contrast – and the disproof of your “projection” thesis – nobody running for national office claims to be a liberal, not even the most-leftist overlord in American history, Chauncey. Nobody running for national office wants anyone to think they hold leftist beliefs. On those rare occasions that leftists try to disparage specific conservative policies, they never critique the thrust of those policies, but merely call names. The most common such name-calling is the neutral sounding “out of the mainstream,” even on such issues as ObamaCare and Abortion, where the majority opposes the leftist position. Is there any clearer mark of a “loser” than an ideology that dare not speak its own name?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Say @ 10:50, obvious error in your argument: “Witness them running away from the label “republican” to “conservative”,” “Republican” is not an ideology any more than is “democrat.” Conservatives back away from the label “republican,” not because Republican is too conservative, but because too often it is not conservative enough. Unlike leftists, we conservatives and libertarians are proud to state our beliefs, proud for all to know we stand for smaller government and more individual freedom and responsibility, and we reject the “corporate capitalists” who use public funds for Solyndra-like friends. Leftists always try to buy votes with the public purse.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Pangloss @ 11:34, “White House Press Secretary Jay Carney defended Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday after Biden suggested that rape and murder incidences in the U.S. would increase without passage of an Obama administration-backed $35 billion jobs measure.” CBS news commits a random act of journalism, cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20123397-503544.html

• Link
• Report this comment

“Aquagirl

October 28th, 2011
1:03 pm
This dumb@$$ was ok with poll taxes. He thought Nixon’s attempted end-run around Watergate investigations was legal. It was a complete slap in the face he was ever considered, much less put forth as someone who should be sitting on the Supreme Court.

Buy a clue, Kyle: don’t launch a nuke by nominating guys with 14th century thinking and they won’t get Borked.”

Aquagirl, You could say the same thing about Obama running around congress and his choices of supreme court judges. Sotomajor is a racist life time member of LaRaza with ALL of her decisions being struck down as unconstitutional. And Kagen never being a judge with extreme communist views that said she “Had real problems with the first amendment and had NO sympathy for the second amendment”. Both of these two liberal progressive choices of Obama are communist that don’t even believe in the US Constitution. So where is your anger about these two misfitts that Obama and the democrats forced on to the supreme court? Hey liberals what about that?

• Link
• Report this comment

Michael H. Smith: “What are the limits of federal rights. If you progressive liberal socialist are correct then the rights of the federal government are UNLIMITED.”
———————–

A correction–governments don’t have rights. People have rights. The constitution exists in large part to protect the people and their rights from the government.

• Link
• Report this comment

“the Republican/Tea Party is acting so uncivil in Congress”
———————–

Declining to assist Obozo in implementing his big government, big spending, big regulating, higher taxing “fundamental transfmormation” of America into a socialist state is not uncivil.

• Link
• Report this comment

Another day, another blubbering AJC anti Herman Cain sissy fit-

Strauss was fired after 12 years with the symphony after arguing with Cain following a 1994 performance featuring the CEO as guest vocalist. Strauss, who is Jewish and liberal, said Cain peppered the performance with “Christian testimony and snide political jokes.” -Urinal

Well.

Boo hoo hoo, you little panty waist racists.

• Link
• Report this comment

There is no conflict between fairness and justice. Fairness actually is at the core of justice. As a matter of fact, fairness has been defined as a freedom from injustice. The rights we assume we have are based on the ideas of fairness in a particular situation.

• Link
• Report this comment

Not a word of Nixon in this entire rebuke? Any respect for institution and elected leader’s character was buried in the early 70s by the disgrace of a president assisted by Bork in the firing, of Archibald Cox. Two men of honor resigned that Saturday night before they would aid the madness of Nixon, but the weak charactered Bork took the opportunity to advance his dirty minded career. Bork was like the hot bag of wind doctor in a cowboy movie who would pontificate with brief pause for the dryness of his throat on which occasions only the taste of alcohol could alleviate the problem. I find Bork quiet the kin to our man Newt who falls in love with his own voice and invents whatever the stage demands for the next paycheck. Bork may truly be the first Republican nut ball to make it out of the basement of the Republican party and should be celebrated for that if anything. I’m not sure this country took nut balls that seriously until Bork. And I say the country loosely the main appeal is the Republican Party and of that a large southern following which should surprise none.

• Link
• Report this comment

TruthBe the liberty you take in descriptions is breath taking. Anyone not raised on corn liquor and spitting tobacco juice is a communist? More so if you went to a school with ratings above West Georgia you are a liberal with an agenda. In other words is you think at all you cannot be an American and if one on the fringe of anarchy. The relief of you is that a majority of Americans find that repugnant, and despite all your misdirection the majority vote which your type seldom has will once again favor Obama .

• Link
• Report this comment

This should make the libs at the Urinal blubber anew-

Cain’s finish shows a significant gain of support in Iowa, as he scored just 10 percent in the Register’s first poll held in June. Romney’s support relatively stayed the same.

The retired pizza executive’s numbers strengthened in Iowa despite him spending little time campaigning The Hawkeye State, with only one appearance there since Aug. 13 — at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition’s presidential forum on Oct. 22.

Not gonna be runnin against Flip Flop, are ya?

• Link
• Report this comment

Michael Smith,

FYI, on January 23, 1964, the United States ratified the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting any poll tax in elections for federal officials.

The $1.50 poll tax prior to 1964, was obviously much more significant, in terms of present value.

Your assumptions about my political leanings, and support of Justice Sotomayer, as just dead wrong. If you want to make points, and win others over to your way of thinking, stick with facts. You are way off the reservation with those unfounded personal attacks.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle,

The discourse has gotten so low on this blog, I don’t think I can do it anymore, I appreciate your tolerance, but there are just too many ignorant comments and personal attacks you have to wade through to find a few pearls. Has the AJC thought of rating the postings or letting the readers rate the comments, so that the cream rises to the top of your blog? Just a thought. Appreciate what you try to do, here, I really do. You have the patience of a saint. Thank you for your public service.

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] Remembering Bork, and the borkings we’ve endured since [...]

• Link
• Report this comment

great op-ed here …. and if you look deeply enough into the message, you see a lot of “borking” in the readers’ responses. looks as if the malady has gone far beyond just our policiticans. might even be a national disease these days and by many, simply an intellectual game or exercise without evening realizing it.

• Link
• Report this comment

moron

• Link
• Report this comment

When it comes to Cain, the libs have called him an intellectual lightweight, a racist, and now accuse him of sexual harrassment. They’ve played all their cards. What’s next? His previous bout with cancer.

Shameless morons.

• Link
• Report this comment

If it’s Romney they fear, then why do they keeping promoting him?

• Link
• Report this comment