1. dispatches
  2. Brit Hume and Robert Bork

Brit Hume and Robert Bork

By stcynic on January 9, 2006.

I've had the Alito confirmation hearing on in the other room but I haven't been paying attention to them because, frankly, the opening statements by the senators on the committee are pretty much meaningless hot air. But as I was walking through the room I heard Brit Hume mention Robert Bork and I stopped for a second to catch what he said. I'm glad I did - what he said was false. He said:

"He had a reasoned position on a line of cases leading to Roe v Wade and he argued it in such a way that it gave the impression that he didn't think there was a right to privacy in the constitution. He didn't think that but it sounded like he did."

This is simply wrong. Bork has emphatically argued that there is no general "right to privacy" beyond the specific provisions of, for example, the 4th amendment. Even a cursory examination of his writings on the subject prove this true. He has repeatedly referred to the right to privacy in Griswold as a "new" or "invented" constitutional right, in no way tied to the text of the Constitution.

I actually did catch later some of Sen. Cornyn's opening remarks and they were full of ridiculous rhetoric. I hope to find the full text of them so I can have some fun with them.

Tags
Supreme Court Confirmation

More like this

The Privacy Competition Myth

In his non-book-review of Garret Keizer's new book, Privacy, "Reason" Magazine correspondent includes this ill-informed quip on privacy:

Google's Leadership on Privacy

For some time, I've been trying to better understand Google's worldview on privacy issues. The culture of companies fosters different privacy values and sensitivities, and the signals sent by those at the top shape how the organization itself conceives of and addresses privacy issues.

Why Privacy Is What It Is...

The Ponemon Institute and TRUSTe have just released their annual Most Trusted Companies for Privacy report.

Age and Privacy

Media reports teem with stories of young people posting salacious photos online, writing about alcohol-fueled misdeeds on social networking sites, and publicizing other ill-considered escapades that may haunt them in the future.

Part two, which opens with Cornyn's whinging is here.

Wouldn't it be stunningly amazing if one of the MSM streams actually discussed historical nomination proceedings?? Rather than continually rehashing Bork for example, couldn't they dig out the recorded transcripts of nominees in the early 1800's to see what they were saying about their understanding of the "power" of the US Constitution?? Or those in the late 1800's when the robber barons and their financial supporters were trying to stack the Court as they had the US Senate????

If I'm remembering this correctly, the nomination deliberations of the Senate from the early 1800s were not recorded, and are not available. Until the later 1800s, I don't think there was even a judiciary committee that reviewed nominations before making a recommendation vote, as is now generally the rule. Until the early 20th century, it was highly unusual even for a nominee to appear before a Senate committee or even meet with individual Senators. Brandeis (I think) was one of the first to really show up and defend himself and his views (he was ultimately successful).