I'll leave the Swedish Chef jokes for someone else.

I'm so happy this bloviating, pity-party dickhead has come out of his decades-long slumber to hover over a new generation of Americans with the dual sabers of Constitutional originalism and patriarchal moralizing.

fusillade762: Hey, say what you want about Borky, at least no one ever accused him of putting his pubes on their soda can.

Pop.

GreenAdder: their soda can.

Pop.

Coke.

Wait. I just thought of one.
"Is that the guy who plays Beretta in Sweden?"

This will not be forgotten, however.

The "Saturday Night Massacre" was the term given by political commentators[1] 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

Nixon then contacted the Solicitor General, Robert Bork, and ordered him as acting head of the Justice Department to fire Cox. Richardson and Ruckelshaus had both personally assured the congressional committee overseeing the special prosecutor investigation that they would not interfere. However, Bork had made no such assurance to the committee. Though Bork 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."[7] Nevertheless, after being persuaded by Richardson to stay on to ensure that someone who knew how the Justice Department worked would still be in charge, Bork did comply with Nixon's order after consulting with others, since the President was obviously determined to find someone who would fire 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."

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

I feel like I should know more about him.

Go away, Mr. Bork and take Mittens with you.

coeyagi: aselene: Liberal monsters defeated this great intellectual's nomination with vicious attacks on his character. They called attention to his opposition to civil rights legislation, among other slanders. That was the first time in American history that anyone had played dirty politics, and that's why Republicans are completely justified in opposing everything the Obama administration does.

I got one sentence in then I voted. 1.5/10.

No, this is what Conservatives actually believe.

Poe's Law strikes again.

That was a reflection of what I thought at the time, because I said it. But, heck, it was a long time ago. And it turns out that the transition to a non-discriminatory society was much easier than I thought it would be. I am now perfectly happy with the way things turned out.

Oh, well that makes it all better, I guess... *rolls eyes*

So his main opposition to the Civil Rights Act was that it would be too hard to implement? Yeah, that's a guy I want advising me.

Kibbler: One wonders what Bork would have to say, in a private setting, after a few drinks, about Clarence Thomas.

"His shoe shining skills leave a lot to be desired"?

siphra: Not to defend him; However when taken with his other statement that he felt it was government overstepping its reach it makes some sense. That is he may (and of course I have no idea what the idiot was thinking) have felt that there would be too much resistance, perhaps even violent.

There was violent resistance to it...

To say that people should have been kept in second-class citizen status because it would be too hard to implement more equal and just laws is a complete cop out and shows a remarkable contempt for the principles this country supposedly stands for.

I wouldn't call it "overstepping" if someone's "freedom" to oppress another because of race is impeded by the federal government. I'd call it justice for the oppressed.

Misch: No, this is what Conservatives actually believe.

Poe's Law strikes again.

I love how the "ugliness" started with Bork receiving an up-or-down majority confirmation vote... and failing to get a majority.

Therefore, Republicans are completely justified in demanding 60 votes for any appointee to get confirmed ever again.

siphra: I agree, I was simply stating that given the time of the events, and his other statements, one could put it into a sort of perspective. It was still a morally wrong choice.

I see what you're getting at, but I just don't think the perspective or context changes anything with regards to his words and actions at the time.

People's views change over time, of course, and many people, who were against the CRA, have admitted their error in opposing it without qualifiers.