Robert Bork
We did not want the year to pass without lamenting the loss of Robert Bork, who died 19th December age eighty-five. Among the greatest American jurisprudes, he is alas more remembered instead as a verb, for what was done to him. President Reagan managed to get Antonin Scalia onto the Supreme Court (its finest mind to the present day), but the Democrats who controlled the United States Senate in 1987 had long been chafing at Reagan’s rightward judicial course. A Nixon appointee was now retiring, whom the Left had come to appreciate for his mediocrity & pliability. The last thing they wanted was another Constitutional “Originalist” to replace him, with fire & spine. (The Originalist position is to discover what the Constitution “originally” said, & apply that; rather than “creatively” misreading it to get what progressives want & Congress won’t give them.)
And so the campaign to bork Bork began before he was even nominated. It would be a vicious campaign of personal smears & slander against “fill-in-the-blank.” Upon Bork’s actual nomination, Joe Biden quickly draughted a brief in which Bork’s views & career were caricatured with scurrility; the Democrat politicians & progressive lobbyists primped their outrage for the cameras; & the liberal media went dutifully to work amplifying each insinuation.
The most memorable part of this performance was the late Senator Kennedy’s theatrical denunciation, of “Robert Bork’s America.” It was a succession of very bald statements, each a knowing & malicious lie. Bork & his allies were taken aback; they were not prepared for the full stench of what was venting into the Senate chamber from Teddy Kennedy’s soul. Even for a man among the most disgusting ever to demean American politics, it was an unprecedented performance. And yet, in the sight of millions of zombified television onlookers, it succeeded in its object. Robert Bork’s honest reputation lay buried under Kennedy’s steaming pile; & the honour of the Democrat Party went into total eclipse, where it has remained for the past quarter century.
Bork himself, a very decent & learned man, normally quite courageous, was shaken to the point of resigning his appellate-court seat, to become an independent legal scholar. During the Senate hearings, he often seemed amazed by what was being said to him, & asked of him — abandoning legal arguments half-stated, not from any apparent desire to pull his punches, but from the pointlessness of explaining anything to Gadarene swine. His own decisive arguments against e.g. the construction of “civil rights” principles out of thin air, or of the “right to privacy” that justified Roe v. Wade, trailed off into silence. One must go to his books to find them completed.
His book, The Temptation of America (1990), offered powerful insights not only into the techniques but the mindset of several generations of judicial activists, going back to the New Deal if not Woodrow Wilson, rewriting laws with which they did not happen to agree, for the sake of abstract conceptions of justice that were incoherent. He carried this farther in Coercing Virtue (2003), which surveys judicial activism throughout the Western world; for everywhere self-confident liberal judges are putting such cracks into the edifice of law, by means of grand & preening acts of moral & intellectual vandalism.
Bork wrote Slouching Towards Gomorrah (2003), & edited A Country I Do Not Recognize (2005), about activist legal assaults on the commonly-held moral values that serve as the glue for our civilization. Everywhere, liberty is being redefined as licence, & individual liberty confined to the expression of the vile & obscene. Yet throughout Bork maintains a voice that is calmly & cautiously working within the parameters of the old American constitutionalism, often candidly admitting that little or nothing can be done.
We met him a decade ago, up here in Toronto, at a moment when we were both moving into the Catholic Church. Bork’s second wife, Mary Ellen née Pohl (his first died of cancer) led him gradually into the fold, by example he said — a very charming & kindly woman. Alike, Bork & his wife were of the old neighbourly school of America, who took the world for a small town, & greeted everyone in passing. On parting, they casually invited us to stay with them, on our next jaunt towards Virginia. We should have leapt at the opportunity to continue what was already an exhilarating conversation.
Our impression was that, in addition to the spiritual substance of Catholicism, Bork was attracted to the light of Natural Law, in its ancient Catholic exposition; that he was mulling in this light his own implicit legal positivism (that is, the view that the validity of a law depends not on its merits, but on its sources). This followed, too, from revisiting his own earlier “revolutionary” thinking in The Antitrust Paradox (1978 & revisions), where he argued that the law was meant to protect the interest of consumers, which might or might not actually be harmed by any given corporate merger, & must therefore be considered from more angles, less by rote & with more common sense.
He was, we speculate, developing a position more Harry Jaffa than Harry Jaffa — or as we like to think, moving towards what could be labelled, “Originalism Squared.” Where the U.S. Constitution gives only vague, ambiguous, or even contradictory indications of right, it nevertheless points back to natural law principles from which a clearer indication might be constructed, which could then be shown consistent with Constitutional instruction. Bork was endowed with a mind self-critical & intellectually humble; his gift was to stop short, as he thought judges should always stop short, of pushing beyond a demonstrable cusp of clear understanding. But he began to look beyond, towards territory quite different from what activist judges had imagined.
There is never enough time, in this world, & a man grows old before all the implications of his faith & belief & knowledge have truly begun to unfold. As Bork said to me (paraphrase): “Your instincts may be sound, & your argument may be self-consistent, but then your realize the foundations on which you are building are too rough, & you must explore the deeper foundations.”
“Old men should be explorers,” as T.S. Eliot said, “still & still moving,” towards “a further union, a deeper communion.”
In the end Bork was grateful to have been borked. He would have had to spend his last years corked in the bottle with eight other judicial scorpions, joining hapless minorities on the Supreme Court bench, writing opinions on cases themselves misconceived, taking heat for ideas he had never entertained, & yearning for personal freedom. Instead, by luck, he was allowed to roam. “Defeat is the great liberator,” we said apropos another matter entirely, & noticed the sparkling approval in his eyes. Conversely, victory in this world is the usual prelude to disaster. It is a wonderful grace of God to be spared it.
Gosh, and here I thought that Joe Biden was such a nice Catholic fellow, along with Teddy Kennedy of course. After all, Teddy got a great Catholic funeral with Cardinal O’Malley presiding. And then there were all those bishops joining Fidel Castro at Pierre Trudeau’s funeral at the Montreal cathedral.
Fortunately for us Catholics in the pews, God will know a Robert Bork from a Ted Kennedy on Judgement Day.
The biggest trap that any country can fall into, and one that the US is fully ensnared, is the idea that a constitution is inviolate. A constitution is the attempt by a handful of men to draft the basic rules by which a country operates. The concept is noble, and probably necessary, but it is obsolete on the day it is ratified.
An excellent example of this is the American right to bear arms. This amendment refers to the states’ right to maintain armed militias. But a right leaning supreme court decided that the amendment also applied to individuals. But even if we assume that the drafters of the constitution did intend for this to apply to individuals (white individuals, of course, because the constitution says that blacks are not full humans), this was written when a flint-lock, non- rifled gun was the peak of technology. Does anyone think that the founding fathers envisioned the types of arms we have now?
Any country that is not willing to revisit it’s constitution from time to time is just asking for a revolution.
Bork & the Originalists never argued that the U.S. Constitution was “inviolate” or “could never be changed.” It could be changed, & has been changed by many Amendments. Their position is that it must be changed by legitimate legislative means, & not by the whim of a judge, inventing new principles & “rights” as he goes along.
The notion that the Constitution says blacks are not full human is also false. The correspondent is referring, as many liberals before him, to a counting formula for districting purposes. It may have been objectionable, but it had nothing to do with that.
I have followed your writings after stumbling upon them after 9/11. Your grasp of the world around us is entertaining and enlightening. You remind me of some of my best teachers and professors in that.
I have often been tempted to write and your new website now allows that. I see a following has been there, like myself, who now can communicate with “the High Doganate.”
So let me say I thoroughly agree with your assessment of the trial and conviction of Robert Bork for being a superior human being in morals and intellect than the Gadarene swine that populate our political life in the United States. May he rest in peace and may God (if He is looking to clear his docket) appoint him to a position in His court.
Acartia, the right to bear arms must be kept as it is. Having an armed population does have its problems, but one of them would not be a dictator suddenly taking over the United States. An armed population can rise up and throw out any dictator that may emerge.
One of the most appalling images I can recall is an old photograph of Bolsheviks in the Ukraine bristling with weapons during the great Stalin-induced famine of the 1930s. If the population had been well-armed, those Bolsheviks would have been filled with lead. Millions starved to death while the commies rampaged across the land enforcing the nightmare of “scientific socialism.”
As per unelected courts ruling a country, this is a modern plague that must end. Robert Bork stood clearly against judicial juntas determining what laws are to be allowed to exist, and what other laws must be modified to include the latest whim of the folks sitting on benches and dressed up like Santa Claus.
David, with respect, it is you that is not correct. The constitution clearly states that slaves count for three fifths (or it might be two fifths) with regard to apportioning votes. Not only is this treating slaves as non humans, after all, it wasn’t the slave who got the fraction of the vote, but it also contributed to prolonging slavery because there was a benefit to increasing the number of slaves.
It is true that there have been amendments to the constitution but over the last several decades, possibly since the war, the constitution has been perceived more and more as a symbol rather than a living document. And any time something becomes a symbol, it becomes more difficult and unacceptable to question.
This is getting tedious. If Mr Acartia says that blacks were not fairly treated, we will happily let it pass, but when he tries, “the constitution says that blacks are not full humans,” he puts us under an obligation to correct a bold & vicious lie. And this, even though as an old Loyalist, we are not ourself especially sympathetic to the U.S. Constitution.
Statements like “the constitution has been perceived” are just what the late Bork & yours truly are revolted by. This is not an argument, it is fanciful posturing. Perceived by whom, & why? There is in fact a legitimate mechanism for amending the U.S. Constitution, it is in legal force, & therefore no judge is justified in rewriting the laws on the basis of some asinine personal “perception.” The scandal here is that such judges are not impeached, & because they are not impeached the nation is dissolving into lawlessness.
Ditto with outrages such as those in the Executive Branch, when orders are given simply not to enforce immigration & other laws made by the Congress. If the President does not like these laws, he may try to get them changed. Subverting them instead by executive order is exactly the kind of stinking tyranny the U.S. Founding Fathers foresaw, & condemned.
Acartia,
From Article 1 section 2:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” As I understand, this was done to limit the number of representatives from slave holding states.
That last point Otiosus is a very good one. It is not only the liberal/left judges who are bypassing those elected by the people to make laws, but the President as well. This, of course, is what it is to be a progressive liberal. Having declared one’s self a god at least in one’s own mind, there is no need to be bound by something as paltry as legislation once voted on and passed. There is a great transient freedom in becoming a petty dictator, but where it ends up in is the quagmire of one’s own ego.
I do not unreservedly support mob rule (ie. democracy) myself, so I can’t be considered biased in its favour. All I would wish of a leader is to be a moral and reasonable person guided by the Will of Christ. (Christian Kings and Queens have had their faults in the past, but not the sort of lethal faults in leadership that democracies eventually foster over time.)
David, I don’t disagree with you that the courts should not be making the laws. In this we agree. But the idea that there are legal means to amend the constitution, although true in fact, have not been true in reality for almost 100 years. The last three significant amendments were the elimination of slavery (1965), the implementation of income tax (1923) and the right for women to vote (1920). Since then, all of the amendments have been administrative.
Since then, the idea of the constitution has become one of symbolism. There have been minor amendments but no politician would be wiling to suggest any fundamental changes. As much as the politicians complain about the courts making laws, there are many on both the right and the left that see this as an easier way to enact change than to actually amend the constitution. I am not saying that it is right, because it is not, but this is because of the politicians, not the judges.
Frank Too, indeed it was. The slave states had wanted a Representative in the House for every 50,000 slaves as well as every 50,000 free; the non-slave states had wanted 0 representatives for all slaves. Permitting the Slave states one representative for every ~83,333 slaves was regarded at the time as an acceptable compromise. Oddly enough, the CSA retained this bit of verbiage in their constitution.
Wow. Lots more room to swing our commentary elbows … thanks.
Unworthy to carry Robert Bork’s briefcase, it still struck me that DW’s description suggests that the good Justice consciously or subconsciously subverted his own nomination once he realized the depth of the doo in the pigsty. While I am sure he subsequently worked hard to improve the justice system from without, it seems to me a shame he didn’t get, or take, perhaps, the challenge of Supreme reform from within. Personal liberation may have come at the cost of a tightening “progressive” stranglehold on the public judiciary.