I see that attempts are being made to justify the tainting – or simple scrubbing out – of the honor and trustworthiness of the Republicans by conservative Republicans, and is best summed up by Erick Erickson’s secondary header on his email (perhaps available publicly?) on his frantic attempt to rationalize the collapse of Republican ethics and morality:
Remember Robert Bork!
Yes, I agree! Here’s the primary, even pivotal, information:
On October 20, 1973, Solicitor General Bork was instrumental in the ‘Saturday Night Massacre‘ when President Richard Nixon ordered the firing of Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox following Cox’s request for tapes of his Oval Office conversations. Nixon initially ordered U.S. Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson resigned rather than carry out the order. Richardson’s top deputy, Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, also considered the order “fundamentally wrong” and resigned, making Bork acting attorney general. When Nixon reiterated his order, Bork complied and fired Cox. Bork claimed he carried out the order under pressure from Nixon’s attorneys and intended to resign immediately afterward, but was persuaded by Richardson and Ruckelshaus to stay on for the good of the Justice Department. Bork remained acting attorney general until the appointment of William B. Saxbe on January 4, 1974. In his posthumously published memoirs, Bork claimed that after he carried out the order, Nixon promised him the next seat on the Supreme Court, though Bork didn’t take the offer seriously as he believed that Watergate had left Nixon too politically compromised to appoint another justice. Nixon would never get the chance to carry out his promise to Bork, as the next Supreme Court vacancy came after Nixon resigned and Gerald Ford assumed the presidency, with Ford instead nominating John Paul Stevens following the 1975 retirement of William O. Douglas. [Wikipedia]
[Citations omitted.]
Yes, former Solicitor-General and Nixon Hatchet-Man Robert P. Bork. A man whose moral system and understanding of the moral responsibilities inherent in our system of government were undeniably compromised.
Yep, let’s remember that it was the Democrats, and not the Republicans, who objected to the nomination of a man who obviously was willing to do whatever it was he was told to do, with no thought as to whether that was the proper thing to do. That is not a good characteristic in a Justice of SCOTUS, who often confront ideologies in governmental form. Just think of Trump’s frequent attacks on the judiciary.
Throw in the promise of a seat on the Supreme Court, which cannot be interpreted as anything but a bribe, which – regardless of Bork’s claim in his book – should have functioned as a red flag for Bork, as it would have for any person with a keen moral sense, and it really closes the casebook on Bork. The Democrats did right in rejecting him.
Yes, let’s remember Robert P. Bork.
All that said, no doubt Erickson will win this fight, because the right has made Bork into a minor deity, the man denied a seat on SCOTUS. A choice denied, not proper advice and consent exercised because of the authoritarian streak of the nominee. But, in the Platonic world of ideals, his is the losing end of the contest, because Bork wasn’t worthy of the nomination.
Yes, let’s remember the quality of the deities of the conservative kingdom. And repudiate it.
