15 CommentsTwenty years ago yesterday, the US Senate rejected Robert Bork‘s nomination to the Supreme Court. Turns out he wouldn’t have gotten there at all were it not for the old Columbia School of Journalism, which wouldn’t recognize his degree from the University of Chicago when he tried to apply. “That irritated me a little bit, so in a fit of pique, I went to law school,” he says at about 4:30.
And then became one of the most divisive jurists in American history.
Thanks to David Yin for his legal geekery.
Loading …
15 Comments
@Marshall was one of the worst jurors to sit on the bench. He had no jurisprudence. Thomas, while advocating a very unorthodox philosophy, is at least consistent. Then again some idiots probably feel that Brennan/Warren’s non existent jurisprudence was actually the correct way to do tings.
@erm.. I’m obviously referring to Thurgood..not John—who’s appeal to judicial review has caused much ball licking from professors for almost 2 centuries
@ahem jurors?
@egg on my face i meant jurists
@I don't I don’t think either Thomas or Marshall are anything to write home about. I would much rather prefer another Byron White on the bench.
@Yes. I know, token. I’m not referring to the order in which they were nominated. I’m just saying that the Court would’ve been better with a jurist of his mold, rather than a Clarence Thomas.
@token Thomas took Marshall’s place.
@At least He’s suing Yale…
@but his place was taken by kennedy, not thomas
@bork went to UChicago, UChicago Law, and taught at Yale as a law professor.
@I thought he was a Yalie?
@... woah. what’s that school 23 seconds in?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_V6ulwA0KE
@Yes, he would have surely been better than Thomas. Almost anyone would have been better than Thomas.
@wait this guy’s actually quite funny
@Bork supporter Say what you will; he would have been a lot fucking better than Clarence Thomas.