Log-In Email:    Password:    
  Remember me
Register  |  Forgot Password?  |  Change Password  |  Update Email
The Bork Precedent
What the defeat of Robert Bork's nomination has taught the Bush White House.
by Fred Barnes
07/01/2005 3:00:00 PM

Increase Font Size

 | 

Printer-Friendly

 | 

Email a Friend

 | 

Respond to this article



When Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987, the Reagan White House was not prepared to fight effectively for his confirmation. Indeed, Bork was such a respected judge and admired legal scholar that President Reagan and his aides assumed Bork would have a relatively easy time winning Senate approval. He lost 58-42. In preparing now for a vacancy on the high court, the Bush White House has studied the Bork confirmation fight. And it has learned lessons it hopes will help when President Bush picks a nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first justice to step down during the Bush presidency.

The lessons focus on why Bork was defeated. They involve what is to be avoided in the 2005 fight to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. And the lessons also focus on what is different now from 1987 and what can be exploited to win confirmation this time.

The first lesson deals with personality and appearance. Bork was a great jurist with a dour personality and an untelegenic beard. His answers to tough legal questions tended to be precise and uncompromising. He didn't connect with millions of viewers who watched the confirmation hearings, which were nationally televised, and with many senators. Even Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia, a moderate conservative, voted against Bork.

So the lesson here for Bush and his advisers is to nominate someone with a reasonably likeable personality. This may sound like a

trivial factor - mere cosmetics. But the Bush White House is correct in taking it seriously. Many of those suggested for the high court would qualify under this standard. Only a few wouldn't.

The second lesson is: don't be caught flatfooted. The corollary to this is to know your opposition. The Reagan White House and Senate Republican leaders drastically underestimated the strength of the opposition to Bork, which was strong and politically astute. And the conservative groups that fought for Bork's confirmation were overmatched by their left-wing opponents. Now, however, the Bush White House is fully aware that any Supreme Court nominee, even one as moderate as O'Connor, will be fiercely opposed. And both the White House and Senate Republican leaders have prepared for this.

In fact, the president and his aides don't believe the fight for confirmation would be significantly easier for an Hispanic or a woman. A possible choice is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a close friend of Bush. In his AG confirmation hearings, Democrats didn't give him a pass because he's Hispanic. They treated him roughly and would be expected - by the Bush White House anyway -- to do the same if he's picked for the Supreme Court. And no-holds-barred treatment would be expected as well if he chooses a woman, such as his White House legal counsel, Harriet Miers. Democrats battled aggressively against the nominations of Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen to the federal court of appeals.



CONTINUED
1 2  Next >
Print This Article

  House Passes Democratic Health Care Bill 220 to 215
Today, 1:30 AM
 
  Update: Stupak Passes 240 to 193; Gingrey Will Vote Yes, But Some Pro-Life Republicans May Oppose Stupak Amendment
Yesterday, 8:51 PM
 
  Democrats to Allow Up-or-Down Vote on Stupak Amendment
Yesterday, 12:12 PM
 
  Does the House Bill Fulfill Obama's Pledge to Bar Abortion Funding? Gibbs Won't Say
Nov 6, 09 07:01 PM
 
   


Search   Subscribe   Subscribers Only   FAQ   Advertise   Store   Newsletter
Contact   About Us   Site Map   Privacy Policy