Bork's Analysis

Article excerpt

Byline: Greg Pierce, THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Bork's analysis

"Democratic senators' filibusters of the president's previous judicial nominees demonstrate liberals determination to retain the [high] court as their political weapon," former Judge Robert H. Bork writes in the Wall Street Journal.

"They claim that conservative critics of the court threaten the independence of the judiciary, as though independence is a warrant to abandon the Constitution for personal predilection. The court's critics are not angry without cause; they have been provoked. The court has converted itself from a legal institution to a political one, and has made so many basic and unsettling changes in American government, life and culture that a counterattack was inevitable, and long overdue," Mr. Bork said.

"If the critics' rhetoric is sometimes overheated, it is less so than that of some Democratic senators and their interest-group allies. The leaders of the Democratic Party in the Senate are making it the party of moral anarchy, and they will fight to keep the court activist and liberal."

The coming fight

"We conservatives didn't pick this fight, but we must win it," Mark R. Levin writes at National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com), referring to the opening on the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It began with the assault on Bob Bork, and too many sat passively while it happened. Meanwhile, President Clinton's activist nominees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both sailed through the confirmation process. They weren't smeared. Their video-rental records weren't combed through. Their trash cans weren't searched. Witnesses weren't called to testify with phony stories about pubic hair on Coke cans. But now is the time to put an end to this," said Mr. Levin, president of the Landmark Legal Foundation and author of "Men in Black."

"Thanks to the Left and its insistence on judicial supremacy, the constitutional, economic, cultural, and political stakes are too high to ignore. No more stealth candidates like David Souter, or compromise candidates like Anthony Kennedy, or [politically correct] candidates like Sandra Day O'Connor in hopes of quieting the Left's opposition. And if the president nominates originalists to this and any other upcoming Court openings, as he assured the public repeatedly he would do, his nominees deserve our complete and active support. And they will have it."

The coming smear

"We don't know who President George W. Bush will nominate to succeed Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But this is certain: Democrats will smear the nominee," syndicated columnist Dennis Prager writes.

"It will not matter how personally honorable, how intellectually honest, how legally profound this nominee is. Indeed, the greater the individual, the greater the personal attacks will be," Mr. Prager said.

"Why?

"There are three reasons.

"First, Democrats believe that conservatives by definition are bad people. As Howard Dean, the head of the Democratic National Committee recently said, 'in contradistinction' to Republicans, Democrats care if children go to bed hungry at night. In most Democrats' minds, conservatives/Republicans do not care if children go to bed hungry, and they are racist, intolerant, regard women as inferior, are stingy and mean spirited, and prefer war to peace.

"The reason they see conservatives this way is that most people on the Left are certain that they mean well; therefore, their opponents do not mean well. …