34 ms·

What would you say the key differences were between the nomination of Merrick Garland and the nomination of Robert Bork?

jandrese 3y ago
Bork was rejected due to his role in the Saturday Night Massacre, not because it was "too close to an election". Also, he actually got a vote.
jcranmer 3y ago
Robert Bork's nomination was rejected by the Senate in a vote after about 3 months (about typical time for a Supreme Court nomination hearing). Merrick Garland's nomination was never heard by the Senate, and lapsed at the end of the Senate session with no hearings nor votes taking place for almost 9 months. Seems like a critical difference to me, at least.
- lliamander 3y ago
  A more critical difference to me seems to be the abhorrent character assassination tactics employed against Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh during their confirmation hearings. Merely refusing to consider Garland seems much milder than to attempt to destroy his reputation and career.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    I'm not familiar with Bork's confirmation, but "character assassination" is a bit of a weird take on Thomas' and Kavanaugh's hearings. Neither of them seem to have much character in the first place; both seem unfit for the bench IMO.
    - lliamander 3y ago
      If you've ever heard of something being "borked", the phrase comes precisely from what happened Bork. I don't think Kavanaugh is especially impressive as a legal mind, but in the debates I had at the time with staunch opponents of Kavanaugh, none of them could produce anything to substantiate the allegations. Their whole argument rested solely on the allegations themselves. What little evidence that was presented only served to undermine those allegations. I don't see how that is anything other than character assassination. I haven't actually looked deeply into the accusations against Thomas during his confirmation hearing, but I have read several of his legal opinions, all of which were quite impressive.
  - adamc 3y ago
    There is so much to dislike about your answer, but let's start with this: You haven't established that it was "character assassination", rather than a rather honest assessment of character, in any of these cases... and I think the evidence strongly leans against you. The second issue is that people deserve a hearing after nomination -- failing to give Garland one was intensely disrespectful. If you don't want to face the possible heat of a hearing, you don't accept the nomination. There was nothing mild about it. It was Mitch McConnell playing politics and overturning established precedent for the sake of a political result. It has not been forgotten, and it will get paid back, with interest.
    - lliamander 3y ago
      > and I think the evidence strongly leans against you. What evidence, exactly? In the case of Kavanaugh there was literally none beyond mere accusations (including some that were entertained on mainstream news that ended up being exposed as fraudulent). > If you don't want to face the possible heat of a hearing, you don't accept the nomination. You are right that politics is always going to require a thick skin. But platforming baseless, sensationalized accusations of criminal conduct (the kind that would never turn into actual charges) is the kind of thing that is going to prevent anyone with any kind of reputation worth protecting from seeking office. This seems like a bad equilibrium state. > It has not been forgotten, and it will get paid back, with interest. I'm sure Democratic politicians will use any excuse they can to capture more power, just as most all politicians do. But you are in no position to make such threats, and I am in no position to respond to them. We are just two people with different beliefs arguing on the internet. Let's focus on the arguments.
shadowfiend 3y ago
The fact that Garland got no confirmation hearings or consideration at all, as well as the bipartisan nature of the confirmation vote Bork actually received that Garland did not, both seem more than sufficient to make these entirely unrelated.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
Bork was voted on for starters.

jandrese 3y ago

Bork was rejected due to his role in the Saturday Night Massacre, not because it was "too close to an election". Also, he actually got a vote.

jcranmer 3y ago

Robert Bork's nomination was rejected by the Senate in a vote after about 3 months (about typical time for a Supreme Court nomination hearing). Merrick Garland's nomination was never heard by the Senate, and lapsed at the end of the Senate session with no hearings nor votes taking place for almost 9 months. Seems like a critical difference to me, at least.

lliamander 3y ago
A more critical difference to me seems to be the abhorrent character assassination tactics employed against Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh during their confirmation hearings. Merely refusing to consider Garland seems much milder than to attempt to destroy his reputation and career.
- kelnos 3y ago
  I'm not familiar with Bork's confirmation, but "character assassination" is a bit of a weird take on Thomas' and Kavanaugh's hearings. Neither of them seem to have much character in the first place; both seem unfit for the bench IMO.
  - lliamander 3y ago
    If you've ever heard of something being "borked", the phrase comes precisely from what happened Bork. I don't think Kavanaugh is especially impressive as a legal mind, but in the debates I had at the time with staunch opponents of Kavanaugh, none of them could produce anything to substantiate the allegations. Their whole argument rested solely on the allegations themselves. What little evidence that was presented only served to undermine those allegations. I don't see how that is anything other than character assassination. I haven't actually looked deeply into the accusations against Thomas during his confirmation hearing, but I have read several of his legal opinions, all of which were quite impressive.
- adamc 3y ago
  There is so much to dislike about your answer, but let's start with this: You haven't established that it was "character assassination", rather than a rather honest assessment of character, in any of these cases... and I think the evidence strongly leans against you. The second issue is that people deserve a hearing after nomination -- failing to give Garland one was intensely disrespectful. If you don't want to face the possible heat of a hearing, you don't accept the nomination. There was nothing mild about it. It was Mitch McConnell playing politics and overturning established precedent for the sake of a political result. It has not been forgotten, and it will get paid back, with interest.
  - lliamander 3y ago
    > and I think the evidence strongly leans against you. What evidence, exactly? In the case of Kavanaugh there was literally none beyond mere accusations (including some that were entertained on mainstream news that ended up being exposed as fraudulent). > If you don't want to face the possible heat of a hearing, you don't accept the nomination. You are right that politics is always going to require a thick skin. But platforming baseless, sensationalized accusations of criminal conduct (the kind that would never turn into actual charges) is the kind of thing that is going to prevent anyone with any kind of reputation worth protecting from seeking office. This seems like a bad equilibrium state. > It has not been forgotten, and it will get paid back, with interest. I'm sure Democratic politicians will use any excuse they can to capture more power, just as most all politicians do. But you are in no position to make such threats, and I am in no position to respond to them. We are just two people with different beliefs arguing on the internet. Let's focus on the arguments.

shadowfiend 3y ago

The fact that Garland got no confirmation hearings or consideration at all, as well as the bipartisan nature of the confirmation vote Bork actually received that Garland did not, both seem more than sufficient to make these entirely unrelated.

HDThoreaun 3y ago

Bork was voted on for starters.