Republicans have what they say is a historical basis for their fighting and even turning down (and in Garland’s case, even refusing to consider) all Democratic judge appointments. This “shocking” event was the Democrat’s turning down of Robert Bork, Reagan’s eminently qualified nominee for the Supreme Court.
They even coined a buzz word for this: Any judge the Democrats even just disagreed on was being “Borked.”
I would say that a guy by the name of Cox was the one that really got Borked.
Archibald Cox was the special prosecutor who was investigating Nixon for impeachment. Nixon wanted him fired. His own appointees — Richardson, the head of the Justice Department, and his second in command — both resigned rather than comply. Nixon found an underling in the department who was ambitious enough and unscrupulous enough to do it, thus putting our country through an unprecedented constitutional crisis during which some wondered if our form of government would survive. This man ignoring our laws and violating our constitution was Mr. Bork.
This was the true “Borking.”
Years later, what the Democrats did on his nomination was honorable. The nominee had proven himself dishonorable. How could they trust him in a position that demanded such a deep source of moral strength? They didn’t think they could. What is the Republicans’ reason for their actions on candidates in the past, and now even to refuse considering one?
Piqua, OH 45356