[…] the late Hon. Robert Bourke, of the US who was a candidate for the supreme court but denied getting the position because he was a true conservative justice, who had said the "Israeli Supreme Court is the most 'draconian' court of all democratic countries.'
(Comment above from a reader of this blog)
* * *
Who was Robert Bourke? What are the comparisons, if any to today’s Israel?
“ Politicization of the modern confirmation process began as the Supreme Court assumed a larger role in American political life during the mid-twentieth century, most notably during and after Earl Warren’s tenure as Chief Justice from 1953 to 1969. The “Warren Court” became a lightning rod of political controversy ...”
Read on
It is 1 July 1987.1 President Ronald Reagan walks into a packed White House Press Room, followed by a man sporting what a Washington Post columnist called “Fu Manchuish facial hair.”2 The president steps up to the podium and announces to the assembled reporters that, “it’s with great pleasure … that I today announce my intention to nominate United States Court of Appeals Judge Robert H. Bork to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.”3
With that sentence, Reagan set off one of the most contentious nomination battles in recent history. This particular saga occupies a prominent place in the popular imagination. Media coverage of recent Supreme Court nominations often cite Bork’s as the primary explanation for how modern confirmations have become so bitter.4 Some scholars, like Laura Kalman, contend that the true change began earlier—in the 1960s and 1970s.5 This paper offers a comprehensive analysis of the Bork battle not as a singular event, but as the culmination of two decades of growing politicization over the role of the Supreme Court in American life.
While previous unsuccessful nominees generated their fair share of political controversy, concerns over ethics or qualifications played the significant role in their rejections. Bork’s failed appointment departed from that trend and marked the first time in nearly a century in which the Senate rejected a nominee on the basis of ideology. Indeed, Bork’s was the first truly modern Supreme Court confirmation: a full-blown electoral fight filled with interest group involvement, political lobbying, and manipulation of media coverage.
Bork’s opponents used his extensive body of writing and speeches to characterize him as an extremist. The Reagan Administration’s inability to answer those charges, combined with Bork’s clumsy performance in the hearings, doomed his chances. Though not every Supreme Court pick since 1987 has generated the same degree of controversy, the Bork battle continues to influence the behavior of both nominees and their opponents since.
If you find this interesting thr remainder is here: https://undergradjournal.history.ucsb.edu/spring-2021/chiu/
1 comment:
But, Bork was a true conservative like the presidential nominee, Goldwater, who was also rejected and the ONLY real explanation of rejection was that they were true conservatives, the likes of more or less, the original founders of the US.
From the 20th century on (& even before), the country was turning more to the left and more global which has spiraled downward since then. In other words, this affected economy, morality, etc.
Post a Comment