Conference back40::soapbox

Congresscritters who exhibit those qualities you mention.

Bob

    I disagree that the book 'strange justice' was really
    about the Clarance Thomas Hearings.  To me it was really
    about the political machinery behind obtaining power and
    powerful positions in Washington, and the art of putting
    pawns in the right places who will do 'their master's bidding.

    It was about the Reagan administration gutting Agencies like
    EEOC by putting people who opposed their policies in charage.

    The political machinations that got Clarence Thomas onto the
    Circuit Court were just as bad as the injustice done us all
    that got him on the Supreme Court.

    The Bork nomination was defeated because of the things he said.
    The Thomas nomination passed because of the lies he said.  And
    the truth that was unsaid.

    I fail to see the parallel.
    bob

>    The political machinations that got Clarence Thomas onto the
>    Circuit Court were just as bad as the injustice done us all
>    that got him on the Supreme Court.

What injustice was done w/ Thomas getting to the Supreme Court??? I love
the guy! He's great!

>    The Thomas nomination passed because of the lies he said.  And
>    the truth that was unsaid.

What lies? Do you care to PROVE them? Or do you just not like him, so
you'll believe anything negative you hear about him?

/scott

>What lies? Do you care to PROVE them? Or do you just not like him, so
>you'll believe anything negative you hear about him?

    I dont know if I like him or not.  Never met him.
    Read the book.

RE                       <<< Note 288.0 by MROA::WILKES >>>

>    Both of these events
>    have reinforced my opinion that one of the greatest disservices the
>    Liberals did for the country in the past 20 years was to defeat the
>    nomination of Robert Bork.

  One of the great accomplishments of liberals in the latter part of this
century was blocking the Robert Bork nomination. Here was a guy who was on
record as believing that Americans do not have a Constitutional right to
privacy and that the 1st amendment should only apply to political discussions.

  When asked about this at his hearing his response was that he had made a
mistake and that he had discovered (oddly enough just about the same time he
was nominated) that he did believe Americans had a right to privacy.

  Another thing that strikes me odd is that in spite of the fact that he has
had this radical reversal in his philosophy, since his nomination was defeated
he has not attempted to articulate his new position, rather he just whines
and moans about how unfairly he was treated by the Democrats.

  The democrats were right to defeat his nomination if for no other reason
than he was obviously perjuring himself at his hearing. Clearly he has not
changed his position with regard to his repressive view of our constitutional
freedoms.

  George

    Both of these events
    have reinforced my opinion that one of the greatest disservices the
    Liberals did for the country in the past 20 years was to defeat the
    nomination of Robert Bork.
    
     It wasn't just that they defeated his nomination, it was the way they
    went about it that was the real injustice. But I think you're are right
    on about it being a huge disservice to the american people, and I agree
    that the legacy of the great borking is that the best qualified people
    aren't willing to go through the hassle of the confirmation process,
    hence the spots are filled by those less qualified.

    re: .6
    
    	You're absolutely right!!!

  I watched the Bork hearing and all the Democrats did was to read phrases from
Bork's writings, ask him what he meant, and state that they did not agree
with his philosophy as written.

  He was given every chance to answer their questions and defend his positions.
What hurt him was his claim that he had recently changed his mind on the
more radical points. No one believed him.

  When the press reported all this to the public and an ABC Harris poll was
taken, a majority of people answered that they did believe that Americans had a
Constitutional right to privacy and that they did NOT want Robert Bork on the
Supreme Court. 

  The next day the Democrats announced that they had the votes to block the
nomination.

  George 

> This was the result in the Bush Administration

Sauder slipped in like a month-old banana peel, no?

    One little point.  The Bork nomination was defeated for one simple
    reason.  He opposed abortion and the pro-abortion and feminist groups
    would have none of that.  Also, you are being a bit disingenuous when
    you claim that Bork did not believe in a right to privacy.  this just
    more of the same crap that waas presented at the time.  Bork did not
    believe a right to privacy extended to abortion rights.  And he
    therefore, disgreed with Roe v Wade.  This was the issue that got the
    whole ball rolling.  there were other, equally as well founded on
    Constitutional intent, but let this suffice.
    
    When the ---- hit the fan, there wasn't a lot of choice but to try and
    have the issue diffused.
    
    You are  a perfect example of what the basenote posits.  If the
    liberals could destroy appointees, who support the administration's
    policies, the it is only right to return the favor when the opportunity
    presents itself.  It would be best if the Supreme Court did step in and
    remind the Senate that their role is to provide advice and consent. 
    They should oppose if an individual is not fit for the job on moral or
    legal grounds - but not on philisophical grounds.  Because Bork did not
    see a Constitutional right to an abortion, it did not make him unfit
    for the court.  Liberals just couldn't accept a different
    interpretation.
    
    As far as Clarence Thomas is concerned, that is a new and all-time low
    for even the most rabid liberals to reach.  If you happen to beleive
    the book against Thomas then why don't you beleive the book critical of
    Hill.  Perhaps you have a different agenda and just prefer to believe
    that Thomas is unaaceptable because of his personal beliefs, but not
    his legal standing.
    
    I hope this continues until the liberals agree that they will never
    again attempt character assasination.  OBTW, you can put John Tower in
    there as well.
    

RE                      <<< Note 288.10 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>

>Also, you are being a bit disingenuous when
>    you claim that Bork did not believe in a right to privacy.  this just
>    more of the same crap that waas presented at the time.  

  I was home listening when Bork was asked about his writings which indicated
that he didn't believe Americans had a constitutional right to privacy. He
never denied having said those things nor did he ever say it was limited to
abortion. 

  What he said was that he had made a mistake and had changed his mind and now
believed that Americans did have a right to privacy. He pointed to some
instance where Lincoln had changed his mind and said that he was changing
his mind just as Abe had done.

>If the
>    liberals could destroy appointees, who support the administration's
>    policies, the it is only right to return the favor when the opportunity
>    presents itself.  

  But they didn't. All the democrats did was to ask Bork about what he had
written. They then gave him every opportunity to explain himself. He destroyed
himself by coming up with an answer people didn't like. When the ABC/Harris
poll showed that Americans did believe in a constitutional right to privacy
and did not want Bork on the court, he was voted down.

>    As far as Clarence Thomas is concerned, that is a new and all-time low
>    for even the most rabid liberals to reach.  

  How so? Again, all the democrats did was to allow Anita Hill and people who
knew both her and Thomas to testify. Now the Republicans, especially Spector
from PA did a 1st class job of going after Anita Hill but it was the witnesses
who criticized Thomas, not the democrats.

>    I hope this continues until the liberals agree that they will never
>    again attempt character assassination.  OBTW, you can put John Tower in
>    there as well.

  There is not a liberal alive who can carry out character assassination like
the leaders of the GOP. If you want to live a pipe dream believing that we can
be intimidated into silence, go ahead but if the GOP is going to pick mud
slingers like Gingrich to hold positions like Speaker of the House you can
expect the situation to get a lot worse before it gets any better.

  George

    I also had an opportunity to follow the Bork hearings, but did see them
    live.  I heard updates on NPR.  They constantly refered to his belief
    regarding right to privacy and abortion.  He also claimed that the
    interpretations of right to privacy ahd extended much further than ever
    intended.  NPR, however, kept coming back to the abortion issue and all
    those opposed constantly talked about his abortion stand, not his
    overall right to privacy position.
    
    The administration did a poor job in preparing him and his explanations
    were not very well presented, but this was a new level of opposition. 
    You can claim that the Democrats were lily white in this, but they did
    not want him on the court because of his conservative views and they
    could not stand that.  They therefore, took everything they could do
    smear him.
    
    Your claim about Thomas is equally hollow.  I saw and heard almost all
    of the hearings and there was not one witness presented by Hill that
    ever said she identified Thomas.  The closest anyone of them came was
    that she identified her supervisor.  thomas was not her supervisor.  He
    was her supervisor's boss.  That was the only instance.  All other
    witnesses, and I beleive there were three, did not ever say that they
    knew it was Thomas, they assumed it.
    
    Also, there were far more witnesses that supported Thomas and the fact
    that he would never conduct himself in such a fashion then there were
    witnesses to support Hill.
    
    The THomas hearings are just another example of the smear tactics used
    to stop conservatives from being on the court.  by saying that the
    Democrats didn't do it, they just let the witnesses talk.  Well, who
    relesed the information, who dug it up and who conducted the hearings. 
    sorry, you don't get to wash your hands on this.  the Democrats and
    liberals wanted to stop any conservative moves and would stop at
    nothing to accomplish it.
    
    Also, as point of reference, one of the leaders of the NOW
    organization, in an interview, said "we've got to Bork this guy right
    now."  Meaning that they had to smear him and do anything necessary to
    get him out of the running.
    
    Protestations to the contrary do not change the facts.  You can, of
    course, put your own spin and/or bias on them.
    

RE                      <<< Note 288.12 by POBOX::ROCUSH >>>

>He also claimed that the
>    interpretations of right to privacy ahd extended much further than ever
>    intended.  

  Yes and this is what got him into trouble. Americans overwhelmingly believe
that the right to privacy has NOT extended much further than intended. For
the most part, Americans cherish their right to privacy.

>NPR, however, kept coming back to the abortion issue and all
>    those opposed constantly talked about his abortion stand, not his
>    overall right to privacy position.

  Who cares about NPR? If radio talk shows are conservatives talking to
conservatives, NPR is liberals talking to liberals. Neither get much of a
following in main stream America. The fact that somewhere around 60% of the
people polled didn't want Bork on the High Court indicates that far more than
the NPR audience was against his nomination.

>    Your claim about Thomas is equally hollow.  I saw and heard almost all
>    of the hearings and there was not one witness presented by Hill that
>    ever said she identified Thomas. 
    
  Anita Hill was the witness. She very clearly identified Thomas. Thomas in
return was given every chance to refute her testimony. All the Democrats did
was to call the witnesses and let them testify. 

>     Also, there were far more witnesses that supported Thomas and the fact
>    that he would never conduct himself in such a fashion then there were
>    witnesses to support Hill.

  There were no witnesses that supported Thomas' testimony as to how he
conducted himself when he was alone with Hill. How could there be unless they
had his office bugged?

>Well, who
>    relesed the information, who dug it up and who conducted the hearings. 

  It is the job of the judiciary committee to investigate the background of
individuals before they are confirmed to a life time appointment to the
Supreme Court. To me the question is, why is it that these conservatives can
only get through the confirmation process smoothly when things are swept under
the rug?

  George

	Hey, did you see that Ray Borque made a commercial with Cam Neeley?

    .14
    So, who are they?

    
    two has beens who play for the Broons...
    

	.11
    
>  I was home listening when Bork was asked about his writings which indicated
    
    	Yeah, George, but you previously admitted that you were home at
    	the time because you were sick.
    
    	We can't be sure that fever didn't further warp your perception.
    
    	:^)

    Sure we can; if it had, he'd have thunk straight. ;-)

                     <<< Note 288.13 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>


>  Who cares about NPR? If radio talk shows are conservatives talking to
>conservatives, NPR is liberals talking to liberals. Neither get much of a
>following in main stream America. The fact that somewhere around 60% of the

Whoa! NPR is not "liberals talking to liberals." It's news - about as 
balanced, and certainly far more comprehensive, than any other radio news 
programming. Fact is, the fuel behind the Bork defeat WAS the pro-choice 
movement, and NPR knew enough to analyze the hearing in that light. It 
wasn't the pornography industry that got the Senators all pumped up.

Where I part with the reichwingers here is that I think it was appropriate 
to raise the hearings up another notch and not simply yes/no the nomination 
based on whether he was qualified, because Reagan's people had obviously 
decided they weren't going to be able to buy religious right votes with 
anti-abortion legislation, because it would never stand the test of 
democracy, so they'd do it by stacking the court to get RvW overturned. 

    Bork's intent to use the original intent doctrine is what scared the
    leftwingers more than anything, ie, no legislating from the bench. The
    spectre of being confined to what is actually in the Constitution so
    thoroughly frightened those whose victories could never come in the
    legislative arena, that the realization that their sole means of
    achieving political gains against the will of the majority would vanish
    so they spared no expense and left no slime unthrown to prevent the
    foremost Constitutional scholar from being elevated to the highest
    court in the land.

    Re: 13
    
    Let's see if I got this right.  Clarence Thonas was guilty because
    Anita Hill said he did it and you, therefore, claim she is right and
    Thomas was guilty.  Unfortunately, Thomas made it clear that under no
    circumstances did he do what she said, nor did he do anything that
    could have been even remotely construed as the acts which she claimed.
    
    In addition to Thomas' clear denial, the overwhelming number of
    witnesses testified that such an act would be totally unlike anything they ever
    experienced, or heard about.  Now I realize that this isn't going to
    change your mind, but it would seem that if you are even the least bit
    fair and open minded that you have to give equal credence to his denial
    and the support of his witnesses as you do to Hill and her minimal
    witnesses.
    
    Also, stop whitewashing the Democrats on the panel.  They had the
    information from the beginning, investigated it and determined that is
    was not very credible.  The only reason it got out was that it was
    clear that Thomas was going to make it and the liberals and feminists
    were not going to take this sitting down.  They decided that they were
    going to "Bork" him and if it took lies, falcifications and untruths,
    well that was OK as long as a conservative was kept off of the court.
    

    The committee carefully prevented witnesses from testifying
    who would have said that Thomas treated them in the same
    way he treated Anita Hill.  They prevented witnesses from
    testifying who would have said that Thomas has had a strong
    interest in both pornography and TALKING ABOUT it all
    his life.  They ignored witnesses who would have testified
    that they stood in line behind him at video stores and watched
    him check out pornographic videos.

    No one's saying that he treated every woman in his office in
    this way.  I have no doubt that there were some who he did
    not sexually abuse.  they were carefully screened.  So what.

    The GOP was waging war, and the democrats were scared to death.
    The result was that Clarence Thomas is now on the Supreme Court.
    This has nothing to do with truth or fairness.
    bob

    
    <---------
    
    and where, pray tell, were these little tidbits gleaned from??
    

    
    Lies isn't right.  Anita Hill was a paid actress, who had memorized
    a script, delivered it on cue, and collected.  Nothing personal.
    
      bb

    Re: 22
    
    Let me get this straight.  There were all of these witnesses who would
    have told their stories about Thomas, but were kept from testifying. 
    Gee, I wonder why the newspapers that hounded Hill into making up her
    story couldn't have found all of these other folks.  I am quite sure
    they would have been more than willing to present their information,
    and the Democrats would have jumped at it, if the press chased this. 
    Oh, I get it.  these folks just never thought about going to the press
    until after the hearings were finished and someone else was writing a
    book.
    
    Maybe they were a little relunctant to make their claims under oath in
    front of a government panel, but feel more secure casting aspertions
    from afar.  No, I'm sure that couldn't be the case.
    

>    Let me get this straight.  There were all of these witnesses who would
>    have told their stories about Thomas, but were kept from testifying. 

    You got it.

    I know the real truth is hard to take.  Did you really believe
    all that hype from his handlers?

    The issue is not Anita Hill at all.  Look at all the lies
    before she ever surfaced.  The guy is a real piece of work.
    bob

    
    <----------
    
    You still haven't explained where all these "revelations" have been
    hiding...

| <<< Note 288.27 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful awound Zebwas!" >>>


| You still haven't explained where all these "revelations" have been hiding...


	Why in the Bible silly!

> You still haven't explained where all these "revelations" have been hiding...

    I'll try again...
    Read Strange Justice.  Read and check the footnotes in the back.

    Perhaps you'll just pass this off as a pack of rumors.

    I'm trying to find David Brock's 'review' of the book but I cant
    find many libraries (or ANY bookstores) that have American Spectator.
    Anyone have it on line?
    bob