Robert Bork’s 1987 nomination to the Supreme Court, and the uproar over his ideology that ultimately led to his defeat, forever changed the process by which the Senate confirms judges.

In the 25 years that have followed Bork’s nomination, the two parties have fought increasingly bitter battles over high court picks in an effort to tilt the third branch of government their way. In 2002, the Oxford English Dictionary added the verb to bork — to systematically defame or vilify a person, especially in the mass media — to their lexicon.

Now there are signs that amid a growing atmosphere of poisonous partisanship, what happened to Bork, who died last week at the age of 85, is beginning to bleed into fights over other nominees.

Even after his death,  New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin declares that Bork “lacked moral courage as  well as legal judgment.”

Hmm. Given that Toobin a) boosted  his writing career when he was an attorney by betraying his employer, special counsel Lawrence Walsh, b) tried to produce a big Clinton book by  sliming Michael Isikoff and c) given his er … uninspiring personal behavior, I’d say  he shouldn’t be denouncing anyone as lacking “moral courage.” But that’s  just me. …

The practice initiated by moderate to liberal democrats and bred by moderate to liberal Republicans has intensified and increased in ferocity since before that time has now become mainstream and has moved down to the local inner sanctum from Tennessee state reps to local councils.

This shows too things, how little we really know about the legislators that we elect or we listen to a lot of lier’s.

%d bloggers like this: