Supreme Court Justice kennedy retires

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No, he was not confirmed because of partisan politics. A new phrase came out of that, called getting “borked”, it means to be denied something that you are obviously qualified for.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know where you found that definition, it's closer to the last one of these. And that's also why his confirmation was opposed.

According to columnist William Safire, the first published use of bork as a verb was possibly in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of August 20, 1987. Safire defines to bork by reference "to the way Democrats savaged Ronald Reagan's nominee, the Appeals Court judge Robert H. Bork, the year before."[37] Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying, "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically ... This little creep, where did he come from?"[38] Thomas was subsequently confirmed after one of the most divisive confirmation hearings in Supreme Court history.

In March 2002, the Oxford English Dictionary added an entry for the verb bork as U.S. political slang, with this definition: "To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way."[39]

There was an earlier usage of bork as a passive verb, common among litigators in the D.C. Circuit: to "get borked" was to receive a conservative judicial decision with no justification in the law, reflecting their perception, later documented in the Cardozo Law Review, of Bork's tendency to decide cases solely according to his ideology.[40]

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I don't know where you found that definition, it's closer to the last one of these. And that's also why his confirmation was opposed.

According to columnist William Safire, the first published use of bork as a verb was possibly in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of August 20, 1987. Safire defines to bork by reference "to the way Democrats savaged Ronald Reagan's nominee, the Appeals Court judge Robert H. Bork, the year before."[37] Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying, "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically ... This little creep, where did he come from?"[38] Thomas was subsequently confirmed after one of the most divisive confirmation hearings in Supreme Court history.

In March 2002, the Oxford English Dictionary added an entry for the verb bork as U.S. political slang, with this definition: "To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way."[39]

There was an earlier usage of bork as a passive verb, common among litigators in the D.C. Circuit: to "get borked" was to receive a conservative judicial decision with no justification in the law, reflecting their perception, later documented in the Cardozo Law Review, of Bork's tendency to decide cases solely according to his ideology.[40]

I found links that defined it as getting attacked politically, especially in the media.

How many times did borks decisions get overturned by higher courts, how many times did Sotomayor?

The gop is likely to get who they want, and god willing, it will transform the court for a generation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The gop is likely to get who they want, and god willing, it will transform the court for a generation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most SCOTUS votes are 9-0 or close to that. On close votes the court has been pretty conservative as of late. The Chief Justice has said Roe is settled law.

What's the radical change you're looking for?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Most SCOTUS votes are 9-0 or close to that. On close votes the court has been pretty conservative as of late. The Chief Justice has said Roe is settled law.

What's the radical change you're looking for?

From the way you put it, sounds like it doesn't matter who gets confirmed. It turns out OK. What's all the fuss about? Things are all going just fine. The system works. All these posts are fussing over nothing.

This thread should expire.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

From the way you put it, sounds like it doesn't matter who gets confirmed. It turns out OK. What's all the fuss about? Things are all going just fine. The system works. All these posts are fussing over nothing.

This thread should expire.

Then why is Jim so excited? He doesn't think Roe will be over turned. He doesn't seem to be anti-gay. He's a sportsman so I'd think he'd oppose repeal of environmental legislation. He's a devout Christian so wishing for payback with the suffering of others, even former democratic leadership would be against his faith...

This really may be an existential question for the board. Why is Jim so giddy?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Most SCOTUS votes are 9-0 or close to that. On close votes the court has been pretty conservative as of late. The Chief Justice has said Roe is settled law.

What's the radical change you're looking for?

So I’m way off base to think this s significant, so explain why the left is going berserk?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device