HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Thank you, George Will

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:45 PM

Thank you, George Will

.... OK, I was not hit by a meteorite, I can continue..

At the ABC morning show he acknowledged that the President has the prerogative to appoint whomever he chooses to his cabinet and that the Senate is expected to approve the nominees.

Newt, then had to pipe in, to reminisce about Bork, and Clarence, and Tower. Except for Tower, the first two were nominated for the Supreme Court which, as Will said, is a different matter.

I don't know why they still complain about Bork. This was my very first letter to elected officials. I commented that the Constitution should be a living document reflecting changes that happened in more than 200 years, not rigidly interpreted. It was 1987, but even then I gave an example of the Fourth Amendment against search and seizure, wondering whether Bork would interpret this as only physical search, not an electronic one.

4 replies, 1257 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:58 PM

1. They complain, still, about Bork because it was one of the first times their bitter mendacity was

revealed for all of America to see.

Bork was the guy who sacked Cox. No, that's not a crude joke (though it did become a bumper sticker), he was the guy who did Nixon's bidding when Elliot Richardson refused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

The "Saturday Night Massacre" was the term given by political commentators to U.S. President Richard Nixon's executive dismissal of independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus on October 20, 1973 during the Watergate scandal.

...When Cox issued a subpoena to President Nixon, asking for copies of taped conversations recorded in the Oval Office and authorized by Nixon as evidence, the president initially refused to comply. On Friday, October 19, 1973, Nixon offered what was later known as the Stennis Compromise—asking U.S. Senator John C. Stennis to review and summarize the tapes for the special prosecutor's office. Since Stennis was famously hard-of-hearing, Cox refused the compromise that same evening and it was believed that there would be a short rest in the legal maneuvering while government offices were closed for the weekend.

However, the following day Nixon ordered Attorney General Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused, and resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. He also refused and resigned.

Nixon then ordered the Solicitor General, Robert Bork (as acting head of the Justice Department) to fire Cox. Both Richardson and Ruckelshaus had given personal assurances to the congressional oversight committee that they would not interfere, but Bork had not. Though Bork claims that he believed Nixon's order to be valid and appropriate, he considered resigning to avoid being "perceived as a man who did the President's bidding to save my job." Nevertheless, having been brought to the White House by limousine and sworn in as Acting Attorney General, Bork wrote the letter firing Cox. Initially, the White House claimed to have fired Ruckelshaus, but as The Washington Post article written the next day pointed out, "The letter from the President to Bork also said Ruckelshaus resigned."


It was absolute NERVE to try to put an assclown who slavishly followed the desires of a duplicitous president to subvert the rule of law on the doggone Supreme Court. The GOP felt the pushback. It was outrageous that they even tried to put that guy on the bench--and they are still stinging from the "correction" they got. Too bad about 'em!

As for George Will, I stand with Jimmy Carter on that little shitstain. He used a stolen briefing book to prep Ronnie Raygun for a debate w/JC. He knew it was stolen; the man has NO ethics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 04:25 PM

2. I still laugh when I recall how his Will's wife, when she found he was having an affair, took

his office furniture and threw it on the front lawn of their suburban Washington home, with a sign that read "Take it somewhere else, buster." Now THAT's a cool way of announcing your marital separation to your neighbors...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to question everything (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 06:03 PM

3. I disagree

"Advice and consent of the Senate" is part of the balance of powers. If the Senate is expected to approve the President's nominees automatically, then the whole exercise is pointless and the Senate becomes a rubber-stamp.

Senators should have a good reason to vote against a nominee, not just political opportunism or irrational hatred of the President, but that's a different issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavidDvorkin (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 07:32 PM

4. I don't think anyone has that much of a disagreement about that. It's a good idea to have

certain modifying "breaks" in executive power, where the opposite party (r member of his/her own) can raise some concerns. But this has gone way beyond it and, as you said, become political opportunism and irrational hatred of the president, which is what we are seeing happen now. This is pure McCarthy-ism, as Chris Matthews so aptly pointed out thru his use of old tapes of McCarthy on his show demonstrated...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread