Somehow, I think his opinion is a little more valuable than the WH
flaks or the idiots here who defend her. He should have renominated
Bork is he had any brains/guts. Instead we get "his heart's" choice.
He makes me sick. I voted Republican but will vote Democrat next
election just because he makes me want to vomit.
[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9623345/[/url]
JUDGE ROBERT BORK, FORMER SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Not a bit. I think
it's a disaster on every level.
CARLSON: Why? Explain the levels on which it's a disaster.
BORK: Well, the first one is, that this is a woman who's undoubtedly
as wonderful a person as they say she is, but so far as anyone can tell
she has no experience with constitutional law whatever. Now it's a
little late to develop a constitutional philosophy or begin to work it
out when you're on the court already. So that-I'm afraid she's
likely to be influenced by factors, such as personal sympathies and so
forth, that she shouldn't be influenced by. I don't expect that
she can be, as the president says, a great justice.
But the other level is more worrisome, in a way: it's kind of a
slap in the face to the conservatives who've been building up a
conservative legal movement for the last 20 years. There's all kinds
of people, now, on the federal bench and some in the law schools who
have worked out consistent philosophies of sticking with the original
principles of the Constitution. And all of those people have been
overlooked. And I think one of the messages here is, don't write,
don't say anything controversial before you're nominated.
It's odd that Justice Roberts, who is now the chief justice, and who
will probably be an excellent choice in many ways, also had no track
record that was easy to follow.
CARLSON: Yes.
BORK: Now this woman, who has even less of a track record.
CARLSON: None at all, it seems like. But her defenders - flaks from
the White House, some of whom we've had on the show -
BORK: Flaks, eh?
CARLSON: Flaks, you know, professional spinners.
BORK: I know the word, I just was interested in this. Go ahead.
CARLSON: Yeah, that's essentially what they are some decent people,
but repeating a line that's been devised by the
PR office of the
White House - claim that she is a great pick because she brings
diversity of experience. Not only is she a woman, and that supposedly
- for reasons I don't quite understand - is very important, but
beyond that, she has followed a different path than most Supreme Court
nominees. She hasn't been a judge, et cetera.
Is there any truth that that's an important qualification?
BORK: No, I think not having been a judge is all right. A lot of
justices hadn't been judges before. But I think this idea that
it's important to have a woman's perspective, or something of that
sort, begins to treat the Supreme Court like a legislature, in which
everybody has to be-all groups have to be represented in some way.
And that's exactly the wrong message to send.
The court is not supposed to be a legislature. It's been a
legislature for too much of our history.
CARLSON: Right. I was fascinated to see the president, at his news
conference the other day, tell a reporter that in his many
conversations with Harriet Miers, going back more than a decade, he'd
never discussed the question of abortion.
When you were nominated for the Supreme Court, did you discuss with
President Reagan, or anybody in his administration, your specific views
on Roe v. Wade, or other issues that might come before the court?
BORK: No, I didn't have to because I had them all in writing, which
was my mistake. The Book of Job says, "Oh, that my adversary had
written a book!" Well, if you write a book or articles as I had, you
give hostages to fortune. So they didn't have to ask me; they knew
where I was.
CARLSON: But do you think they should - I mean, as a non-lawyer, it
seems to me obvious that the president would want to sit her down and
say, you know, here are the important questions that might be raised on
the Supreme Court - what do you think of them? Everyone pretends, or
says, that that's somehow verboten; you're not supposed to do that.
What do you think of it?
BORK: I think it's ridiculous, because the president is not supposed
to ask the nominee, but the senators all drill the nominee endlessly
about his or her positions on various issues. Why the senators should
be allowed to do that and the president shouldn't be, I don't know.
But I wish the president wouldn't ask her, how will you vote on this
case, but try to ask her what materials do you consider relevant to
deciding this case?
CARLSON: Yes. A fascinating point, brought up this morning by Charles
Krauthammer in his column in the Washington Post. He said that, for
four years, Meirs has been immersed in the war and peace decisions
while working at the White House - questions of prisoner detention,
prisoner treatment, war powers et cetera - and he makes the point, if
she does reach the Supreme Court, she'll have to recuse herself from
judging the constitutionality of these decisions because she will have
been party to making those decisions. She won't be able to weigh in
on these vital questions of American life. Is that true, do you think?
BORK: I'm not sure that it is true. Justice Robert Jackson advised
President Truman and President Roosevelt on issues like that, and then
changed his mind when he got on the Supreme Court in the Steel Seizure
case, which held illegal President Truman's seizure of the steel
mills during the Korean War. So I'm not sure that having
participated in the decision at the executive branch level disqualifies
you from deciding the issue as a judge.
CARLSON: Right. I don't think it should either.
Now what do you think her chances of being confirmed are?
BORK: I think they're probably pretty high because - and this
should give the president some pause - they're pretty high because
the Democrats seem to like her.
CARLSON: Yeah.
BORK: I think that ought to give him reason to think that maybe he made
a mistake.
CARLSON: What about conservatives in Washington. I no longer live
there, so I don't have quite my finger on the pulse of it. But
what's your sense of how Bush's supporters feel about Harriet
Miers?
BORK: Well, those who are involved in the process have some reason to
stick with the White House - not because they believe what the White
House has done is wise, but they can't jump overboard with this
decision. But everybody else I've talked to ranges between
disapproval and outrage.
CARLSON: Interesting. Well, I hope those voicing disapproval and
outrage carry the day. I agree with you completely.
Linear Mode
