Supreme Revenge: Robert Bork, Jr. (interview) | FRONTLINE

[@elamarjordan]

I remember how chilling it was for me to listen throughout the whole disgraceful 'event', and what a loud sigh of relief burst out of my mouth eventually.

[@guodade2239]

Robert Bork junior’s assessment and description of his father’s failed nomination is very good and enjoyable to listen to. The details of Biden and Leahy are worth the price of watching.

[@etiennescarbinski7890]

Garland was sweet revenge for Bork for the other side. Love that Biden and Lahey were still alive to see it.

[@annowens5019]

Wake up. Garland/Bork were not Revenge. They were USED as "Returns On Investment" A "Dividend or Pay Off" To Corporate Interest and the McConnell Wealthy .01 Percent (BIG) Campaign Donors. Garland Merritt was just 'road kill' on Mitch McConnell's road to Remaking the Supreme Court into a 'CONSERVATIVE Majority' Bench. WHY would McConnell DEMAND a conservative majority bench and not a moderate bench? To Support McConnell's/Koch brothers Supreme Agenda. Example: United Citizens vs Federal Election Commission [Unlimited Corporate Money Poured Into Elections] Deregulation; Gerrymandering, or Challenges to Favorable Tax Bills and futher Enrichment of the Wealthy and their Addendum of Control and Power.

[@annowens5019]

@coffeeinthemorning ... .... It Is Your Choice To be Confused. And isn't that your intention? (GOGGLE McConnell's Admission After "McConnell Buzzed Through" Kavanaugh Seating On The Bench Of The Supreme Court Of The United States.). Or Mitch McConnell's Kavanaugh Calculation: Vox 10/03/2018

[@annowens5019]

Projection, Exaggeration And Lies? Typical Scripted, McConnell Controlled GOP Response. You Are Not Required To Read My Comment, NOR Are You Required To RESPOND. Ludicrous.

[@21972012145525]

It’s quite horrible actually. The two people who should’ve gotten the role, didn’t. It was especially sad in Merrick Garland’s case, because they didn’t even allow the hearings

[@thtguyethan96]

@@annowens5019 I'll say this both parties do the same thing. It's not just one sided

[@maheshseth751]

Bjork changed the Supreme Court Justice nominations and confirmation for ever. I don’t think this will ever go back and it’s hard to see any new Justice nomination unifying both parties.

[@elliotsmith9930]

I’m not trying to lean either way, but knowing that someone’s working overtime to make money for their family member’s cancer and trying to spin that seems reprehensible. There’s a lot of things that are dirty but understandable; cancer & minors should not fall in that category.

[@21972012145525]

Yes, so true. It was also especially sad of the treatment of Merrick Garland. Really hate these politicians

[@Dougie1969]

@@21972012145525 Treatment of Merrick Garland ??? Nobody treated him bad , at all !! Kavanaugh on the other hand, was treated HORRIBLE

[@eileenross5261]

Merrick Garland was never smeared!! He never even sat before the committee. Yes McConnell used his position to keep the nomination from going forward but he never would have been voted in, the Senate was Republican majority. Bork was crucified especially by Senator Kennedy.... a man with such high moral character 15 years before he got so drunk while driving his car with Mary Jo Kopechne he drove off the bridge into a lake, left the young woman in the car at the bottom of the lake and did not did go get help or call the police for 24 hours.

[@21972012145525]

@coffeeinthemorning to not even hold hearings when you have committed your life to your profession as a civil servant is the worst form of cold shoulder and ghosting! The fact that there WAS NOTHING TO SMEAR is exactly what McConnell was scared of and didn’t even hold hearings. COWARD!

[@21972012145525]

@coffeeinthemorning I never used the word smear. I specifically stated The SAD TREATMENT OF MERRICK GARLAND

[@pamelastetor8803]

Thank you for sharing Robert🌸🌷🌸

[@evanfinch4987]

The intellectual feast statement is one of the reasons I like the guy.

[@elderherrera2238]

This political hit job would eventually would be described as "borking". I was 14 then. This hit job would be my call to conservatism.

[@wilburkimble7168]

Can we assume, then, that you were called to liberalism when McConnell held up Obama's nomination? Or how about then turning around and rushing through Barrett under the same conditions?

[@Isaac40234]

@@wilburkimble7168 Those are not equals. A lame duck president that does hold a majority in either chambers of congress will never get a Supreme Court nomination through without collaborating with the majority leader. Obama didn't so Republicans had no interest in putting Garland on the high court. Trump had the senate he had precedent to move forward with it. In summary if a president in an election year does hold a majority in the senate you will never get an important confirmation through.

[@kevinbrown4073]

Took another 35 years but we redeemed judge bork

[@kurtrambus2728]

By bringing a fascist supreme court.

[@kevinbrown4073]

@@kurtrambus2728 more whine with your cheese

[@Odin31b]

We?

[@evanfinch4987]

yeah who is we

[@Calico_Jim]

@@kurtrambus2728cry harder ya little bitch

[@peteremwells]

He did not mention Merrick Garland once.

[@blue_diamond_gem]

Elections have consequences.

[@Xxwill55xX]

President Obama was a lame-duck President who nominated Garlandalmost 6 months before the 2016 election.... how is it not allowed to let the next president (who the majority of people thought would be Clinton) decide the Nominee

[@theglowingbrownie5124]

@philbyification I know. I didn't understand why Garland had to be mentioned.

[@annowens5019]

@@blue_diamond_gem ...Elections have consequences..." Yes They Do. And The "Placement" Of an Inept, Six time BANKRUPT and Failed Businessesman should not be one (DEUTSCHE Bank]. Particularly, when the result is an Individual who LOST the Election by Nearly Three Million Ballots.

[@JerryDLTN]

@@annowens5019 "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, (bankruptcy) because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring (running multiple large businesses) greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

[@alexm566]

his glasses are missing the right holder or its just me?

[@johnbell4431]

Its just you

[@evanfinch4987]

maybe you need glasses

[@NewManTruckin]

Borked?

[@annowens5019]

"SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE" Review Bork's Role, Decision and Choice of Actions.

[@danarose2677]

Basically it's come to mean something is cocked up. Obstructed. And I grew up saying this and just found out today where it came from.

[@debralegorreta1375]

Bork gave us the "consumer welfare" theory in favor of granting monopolies. If you agree with Bork, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

[@diegomagellan]

His work on monopoly and anti trust is why we’re here today

[@evanfinch4987]

A chalatans understanding of constitutional law

[@JB-wh3we]

Lol now tell us about Marx @debralegorreta1375

[@sdjsfan4ever961]

Your dad was a terrible person, sorry.

[@williammuthee2474]

he was awesome

[@evanfinch4987]

Tell me about it

[@JB-wh3we]

Lol glib af @sdjsfan4ever961

[@kevini4295]

Robert Bork senior did not deserve to even be nominated for SCOTUS. Back when the Senate actually did it's job. Bork lost all credibility and any shred of ethics when I did Nixon's bidding during the Saturday Night Massacre. Nixon promised him a seat on SCOTUS for that. Nixon didn't get to, so Reagan had to fulfill that "promise".

[@californiaslastgasp6847]

That wasn’t the reason why he was denied and you know it.

[@JB-wh3we]

Lol you're dense af. Bork did that to maintain the credibility of the department. The point that the firing of Archibald Cox wasn't a great look had ALREADY BEEN MADE when the AG & Asst AG resigned beforehand. Get out of the activist, activist, activist mindset & try to be objective.

[@kevini4295]

@@JB-wh3we you're dense AF. He was Nixon's hatchet man. The AG and deputy AG resigned because they chose the rule of law vs protecting POTUS for political gain. Nixon promised a seat on the SC, but could not before he resigned. Reagan wanted to help his loyalist buddy buddy. Bork had no reason to even be considered for the SC. To top it off, a bunch of senators even warned Reagan not to nominate him, but he did it anyway and what happened took place for a reason. Ultimately back then Senators put principles before politics and did not just cow tail to their "leader" Unlike this a-hole Trump

[@SurvivalWorks-ji9wc]

Oh look. Nobody us. We deal with Good Food.