Fine, they're not literally unprecedented. Your'e rihgt. There are several cases before WWI and one after.
> I reiterate: this notion that something unique or
> unprecedented happened to Bork is a myth. The
> notion that the Democrats "discovered" a mechanism
> is a myth.
I don't see how you can disagree that the Democrats went out to block Reagan's, then Bush Sr.'s, Supreme Court nominees, and then the Republicans followed suit with Clinton's. This was not the pattern since WWII--we did not have intense partisan fights over the Supreme Court, and certainly not over the Courts of Appeal.
> This myth is being used by certain
> Republicans to justify their ideological
> opposition to certain nominees.
No, it is not. They justify their ideological opposition on ideology, just as the Democrats do. My point is that neither side was doing this before Bork, that Republicans view it as tit-for-tat, and that there is a good basis for this belief. I drew an explicit comparison to the Davis recall, where I expect democrats will do the same in the future.
> Incidentally, I note that after I quoted the
> actual writings of Bork, no one seemed anxious
> to defend them.
What his beliefs were or were not was beside the point entirely. We were discussing the dynamics of using constitutional mechanisms that are available, but inadvisable, especially if they are used frequently. The tit-for-tat that our political parties engage in concerning the judiciary is a perfect case in point. And it started with Bork.
> I again state that the opposition to Bork
> was principled, based on non-ideological grounds,
What crap. The opposition was based on ideological beliefs contrary to those Bork held -- that strict constructionism is wrong, that there should be a freedom to have an abortion, etc. Those are certainly principled positions, but they are entirely ideological and partisan.
> and that it is quite fortunate he was rejected.
Again, not the point. I personally thing that his views, as one of nine, would have been useful on the court, in order to bring a srutiny that was missingfor some time there. Scalia fills this role pretty well for me. I would worry if his views were five of nine.
Powered by hypermail