THIS MODERN WORLD

From a CNN interview this morning, guess who’s still got a chip on his shoulder?

KAGAN: Interesting person to talk to on the phone right now. Robert Bork on the phone, somebody who got almost to the Supreme Court. The judge nominated in 1987, a nomination that did not work out in the way that Judge Bork, I think, you would have liked.

Your comments today on Sandra Day O’Connor and her legacy on the court, please.

JUDGE ROBERT BORK, FMR. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE: Well, she’s a very nice person, but she is — as a justice, she has been — they call her the swing vote. That’s true. But that means that she didn’t have any reaffirmed judicial philosophy.

However, on the crucial cultural question, she has lined up with the liberal side on abortion, on affirmative action, homosexual normalization and so forth.

KAGAN: Excuse me. Judge Bork, do you think it’s fair to say she didn’t have an judicial philosophy? Perhaps that she didn’t have the same judicial philosophy that you share. But she probably — she possibly had a more moderate philosophy and was expressing that as a swing vote on the high court.

BORK: I think that referring to a moderate philosophy and a conservative philosophy and so forth is quite wrong. The question is, those judges who depart from the actual Constitution, and those who try to stick to the actual Constitution.

She departed from it frequently. So that I wouldn’t call that moderate^[1]. I would call it unfortunate.

So dissenting from the conservative view on abortion, affirmative action, and the like is tantamount to departing from the Constitution? I like this guy a lot better on the phone than on the bench. How do you feel about the justice who took your spot, Judge Crybaby?

KAGAN: A lot of people — a lot of conservatives do wish that you had been confirmed and serving on the high court. Instead, it’s been Justice Kennedy, who has been more moderate than a lot of people think.

BORK: I wish you would stop using the word “moderate.” But go ahead.

KAGAN: Well, no. What would you use? How would you compare what Justice Kennedy has done instead of perhaps what you have done if you had been on the court.

BORK: I would call it activist.

Boo-frickin’-hoo. Any advice for a future nominee, Poopyhead?

BORK: I — you know, they’re going to — they’re going to insist upon answers to questions, “How will you vote on this? How will you vote on that?” Which I think is a very unfortunate practice, but that’s what they are doing now in the Senate.

KAGAN: So would you tell a nominee not to answer those questions?

BORK: Either to find a way not to answer it on the grounds that they shouldn’t be answered, or to give straightforward answers, which will mean that he will line up a lot of opposition.

Stonewalling on questions is one piece of advice that Bush judicial nominees don’t need, but thanks anyways. Dust off those anti-coathanger signs folks, you’re gonna need them.

---

^{1 : You can see my take on the “moderate” issue here.}

Bob Harris is travelling again, and apparently his only access to the internet involves radio tubes and hand-crank telephones. At any rate, he’s managed to get a few updates up over at his own site, so go visit.

Close your eyes and imagine the wingnut response if John Kerry had said something like this in a speech :

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: “This Third World War is raging” in Iraq. “The whole world is watching this war.” He says it will end in “victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.”

The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened, or defeated. So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take.

Yeah, I know it’s a bit of a straw man argument, but let’s be serious here. If John Kerry had said the exact same thing last year, Republicans would have gone hoarse shouting “Kerry agrees with Bin Laden?!” and accused him of emboldening our enemies or other such nonsense.

We really screwed the pooch, and now you have no choice but to let us try to clean up the mess.

Since Greg comments on part of what Drum says, I feel obliged to weigh in on the rest:

I actually agree with the overall gist of Christopher Hitchens’ latest column in Slate. He argues that it’s absurd to think you’ve scored some kind of withering putdown of war supporters by pointing out that most of them (and their sons) haven’t volunteered for duty. Since I support police, fire, and social welfare programs despite the fact that I’m not a police officer, a firefighter, or a social worker, I think he’s right on this.

Of course, the crucial distinction is that we, as a society, don’t tend to deliberately start unnecessary fires and then ask firemen to risk their lives trying to extinguish them. We don’t deliberately stage hostage dramas or bank robberies for no apparent reason and then send the police in to resolve the matter. And so on. Clumsy metaphor, but you get the idea. This war was not some random act of God, fate or nature. This war was optional. And as such, it’s perfectly reasonable to ask its supporters if they are willing to encourage their own children to enlist (or, if they are Young Republicans, if they’ll be volunteering for duty soon). Because if the answer is “no,” then they only support the war insofar as others bear the brunt of it. And they deserve to be called on it.