Robert Bork

{{hatnote|Not to be confused with the {{wpl|Swedish Chef}}. Bork, bork, bork!}}
[[File:Robert Bork.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Bork in 2005]]
{{Pseudolaw}}'''Robert Heron Bork''' {{lived|1927|2012}} was an [[United States|American]] [[conservative]] former judge, Solicitor General, and career crook. He was an outspoken advocate of the [[originalism|originalist]] school of legal thought as well as a scholar of [[law]] and author of several best-selling books of political criticism. The tone of these books is generally negative and highly critical of what he perceived as a [[Enlightenment|trend of left-wing radicalism]] in [[Western world|Western society]].

Though Bork was not the first originalist, he is considered to have written the foundational thesis on modern originalism in 1971.<ref name=bork1971>[https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2720&context=ilj Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems] by Robert H. Bork (1971) ''Indiana Law Journal'' 47(1):1-35.</ref><ref name=Chemerinsky>''Worse Than Nothing: The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism'' by Erwin Chemerinsky (2023) Yale University Press. ISBN 0300273983.</ref>{{rp|3-4}}

One of his most famous books was ''Slouching Toward [[Gomorrah]]'', which was a play on ''Slouching Toward Bethlehem'', a line from the poem The Second Coming by W.B. Yeats.<ref>Robert H. Bork, ''Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline,'' Harper Perennial, 2003. ISBN 9780060573119 </ref> In it, he blamed all sorts of ills on the [[Hippies|1960s]] and [[liberal]]ism. [[Dan Savage]] then made a play on Bork's book with ''Skipping Toward Gomorrah'', which caused Bork to threaten to sue. As soon as Savage pointed out Bork's [[Irony|own use of an earlier title]], Bork [[Pwned|backed down]]. As a judge he ''should have known'' that book titles are not generally [[copyright]]able or considered to be intellectual property.<ref>[https://www.thebalance.com/can-a-book-title-be-copyrighted-3974593 Can a Book Title be Copyrighted?] by Jean Murray (September 09, 2016) ''the balance''.</ref>

==1973 role in Saturday Night Massacre==
In October 1973 President [[Richard Nixon]], angered at [[Watergate]] Independent Counsel Archibald Cox's refusal to compromise on a settlement over subpoenaed [[White House]] tapes, ordered the firing of Cox<ref>After which, Nixon became a [http://tohell-andback.blogspot.com/2011/11/impeach-cox-sacker.html Cox sacker.]</ref> whom Nixon considered a "[[Kennedy]] liberal." Attorney General Elliot Richardson, also of [[Massachusetts]], refused and resigned under protest; Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus likewise refused and resigned. Solicitor General Robert Bork then carried out the President's request which has become known in popular culture as the "Saturday Night Massacre," although no one was killed.

==Wingnut or moderate?==
{{main|Wingnut}}
Bork, for his day, was insanely [[right-wing]]. One of the books he authored at Yale was ''The Antitrust Paradox'', which argued that [[corporate]] mergers were good for society and that some anti-trust measures hurt consumers. The book drew heavy criticism from actual [[economist]]s, especially for the way Bork incorrectly uses the term "[[consumer]] [[welfare]]" throughout it, one of the most basic concepts for why anti-trust laws exist.<ref>[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1553226 The Antitrust Consumer Welfare Paradox], University of Arizona</ref>

In 1984, Bork ruled against a [[US Navy|Navy]] sailor who was discharged for [[homosexuality]] in the court case ''Dronenburg v. Zech''. The sailor (Dronenburg) charged that this violated his [[Civil rights|right]] to [[privacy]] but Bork, alongside [[Antonin Scalia]], ruled against him, then whined about [[Supreme Court]] cases where the Court found in favor of the right to privacy.<ref>[https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=ylpr Dronenburg v. Zech: Judicial Restraint or. Judicial Prejudice?] Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 3:245, 1984.</ref>

Perhaps his most vile moment was when he defended the poll tax during his confirmation hearing for Solicitor General, arguing that "It was a very small tax, [[Bullshit|it was not discriminatory]], and I doubt that it had much impact on the welfare of the nation one way or the other." He continued to defend this view by his 1987 nomination.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/23/opinion/l-bork-hearings-showed-how-democracy-works-a-very-small-poll-tax-174787.html Gregory Peck wins.]</ref>

[[Stopped clock|On the other hand]], he claimed to support [[desegregation]]. His position on [[gun control]], where he criticized the [[NRA]] for being too pro-gun and his statement that the [[Second Amendment]] only guarantees the right to participate in a "government militia," might make him a [[RINO]] by today's standards. It is alternatively possible that this was merely a manifestation of his belief, explained in his books and opinions, in infinite judicial deference to legislation<ref>[https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/page/borkean-dilemma-robert-bork-and-tension-between-originalism-and-democracy The Borkean Dilemma: Robert Bork and the Tension between Originalism and Democracy], University of Chicago</ref> and the paucity of individual rights [[Authoritarianism|compared to]] whatever the state considered its interests to be.

==1987 nomination to the Supreme Court==
Upon the retirement of Lewis F. Powell, a well-thought-of [[moderate]] from the Supreme Court in 1987, then-President [[Ronald Reagan]] actually sought to replace him with someone who could be a more… ''batty'' influence. {{wpl|Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination|He chose Bork|.}} The reaction was swift and aggressive; Bork's political views and past were drawn to the attention of the public and widely denounced by 
Gregory Peck
 the [[reality-based community]]. Among other things, [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] asserted that Bork would favor an [[anti-abortion]] stance, and would be a threat to the ruling of ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' if allowed into the Supreme Court. Kennedy set the tone of the opposition to Bork's nomination by stating:<ref name=Chemerinsky/>{{rp|4}}
{{cquote|Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions,{{efn|By overturning ''Roe v. Wade''<ref name=Chemerinsky/>{{rp|3}}}} blacks would sit at [[segregated]] lunch counters,{{efn|By overturning ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'' and reinstating [[states' rights]] [[separate but equal]] laws.<ref name=Chemerinsky/>{{rp|2-5}}}} rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids,{{efn|Because the [[Fourth Amendment]] did not specifically say that a warrant must be issued by a judge for police to search a house.}} and schoolchildren could not be taught about [[evolution]],{{efn|Presumably because the [[Founding Fathers]] did not foresee the [[scientific consensus]] on evolution or universal [[public schooling]].}} writers and artists would be [[censor]]ed at the whim of the Government,{{efn|Because Bork had argued in his 1971 paper that only political speech was protected by the [[First Amendment]].<ref name=bork1971/><ref name=Chemerinsky/>{{rp|3}}}} and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is&nbsp;— and is often the only&nbsp;— protector of the individual rights that are the heard of our democracy.{{efn|Because the indigent would not be entitled to a public defense lawyer.<ref>[https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/democracy-and-equality-the-enduring-constitutional-vision-of-the-warren-court-oxford-university-press-2020/ The Enduring Constitutional Vision of the Warren Court] by Geoffrey Stone & David A. Strauss (February 11, 2020) ''American Constitution Society''.</ref>}}}}

A tide of opposition formed from various supporters of [[civil rights]], and it became apparent that Bork was an unpopular nomination. He was defeated in the [[US Senate|Senate]] vote and the position eventually instead went to [[Anthony Kennedy]].

==Bork's influence today==
Bork was not sent to the Supreme Court, primarily because of his originalist opposition to the ''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]]'' Supreme Court decision that married couples had a right to privacy ''and'' [[birth control]].<ref name=marcus>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/01/originalism-liberal-lawyers-supreme-court-trap/ Originalism is bunk. Liberal lawyers shouldn’t fall for it.] by Ruth Marcus (December 1, 2022 at 9:21 a.m. EST) ''The Washington Post''.</ref> However, his active promotion of originalism was sent to the Supreme Court in later years; as of 2022 four of six conservative justices on the court are committed originalists and the other two generally go along with originalist rulings.<ref name=marcus/> Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] in his opinion overturn ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' specifically said that ''Griswold v. Connecticut'' should also be overturned.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/contraception-supreme-court-clarence-thomas-griswold/ Biden, other critics fear Thomas’s ‘extreme’ position on contraception] by Meryl Kornfield et al. (Updated June 26, 2022 at 3:01 p.m. EDT; Published June 24, 2022 at 4:33 p.m. EDT) ''The Washington Post''.</ref>

=="Bork" as a term of slang==
The word "bork" has entered popular vocabulary since Robert Bork's failed nomination. Its meaning is flexible depending on the speaker, but generally means to attack a person systematically, especially in the media.<ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/borked Define Borked at Dictionary.com]</ref> Also, "borked up" is another way of saying "messed up".

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bork, Robert}}
[[Category:Anti-abortion activists]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Catholics]]
[[Category:Educators]]
[[Category:Homophobes]]
[[Category:Judges]]
[[Category:Lawyers]]
[[Category:Military]]
[[Category:Purity culture]]
[[Category:Racists]]
[[Category:Right-wing activists]]

Categories: Anti-abortion activists, Authors, Catholics, Educators, Homophobes, Judges, Lawyers, Military, Purity culture, Racists, Right-wing activists