• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Robert Bork Dies at 85

hfd said:
Exactly what law did Bork violate?
Click to expand...

It was already mentioned earlier in this thead. Bork helped the Nixon administration attempt to cover up Watergate by obstructing justice. Bork, as part of the Nixon administration, became personally involved in this when he fired Archibald Cox, the Special Prosecutor who was investigating Nixon's attempt to cover it up.
 
hfd said:
Exactly what law did Bork violate?
Click to expand...

Nixon wanted the special prosecutor investigating Watergate fired. He told his Attorney General to fire him. He said "NO" because it was unconstitutional and quit. Then the next in line Nixon told to fire the special prosecutor... he said "NO" because it was unconstitutional and Nixon fired him for it. That's when Nixon dug deep and found a stooge that would fire the special prosecutor and his name was Bork.

It's why they say that the Watergate crime wasn't near as bad as the attempted cover up of the Watergate crime.
 
hfd said:
I recall that buffoon Senator from Alabama, Howell Heflin, asking him, Bork, about his beard during the SC confirmation hearings. He also asked Bork if he was an atheist. Two questions that would never be asked on an application for 7-11. That Lion (Lush) of the Senate, Ted Kennedy also berated Bork minutes after his nomination became known.

Flashback: Ted Kennedy 'Borking' Bork (1987) - YouTube
Click to expand...

May he rest in peace.
 
danarhea said:
My issue with Bork was not the way he was treated, although I felt he could have been treated better. I agree that he should not have been confirmed to the Supreme Court because, as a member of the Nixon administration, he was the one who fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, during the infamous "Saturday Night Massacre" that ended the investigation (temporarily) into Nixon's criminal activities surrounding Watergate. So, instead of upholding the Constitution, as he had sworn to do, Bork assisted in helping the Nixon administration obstruct justice. And for that reason, rather than reasons of ideology, it was proper to shoot down his nomination to SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

I do not agree. Firing the special prosecutor was the legal prerogative of the President. He absolutely upheld the Constitution. I admire him for it.
 
poweRob said:
Nixon wanted the special prosecutor investigating Watergate fired. He told his Attorney General to fire him. He said "NO" because it was unconstitutional and quit. Then the next in line Nixon told to fire the special prosecutor... he said "NO" because it was unconstitutional and Nixon fired him for it. That's when Nixon dug deep and found a stooge that would fire the special prosecutor and his name was Bork.

It's why they say that the Watergate crime wasn't near as bad as the attempted cover up of the Watergate crime.
Click to expand...
It was not unconstitutional.

Bork did the right thing for the right reason.
 
Misterveritis said:
I do not agree. Firing the special prosecutor was the legal prerogative of the President. He absolutely upheld the Constitution. I admire him for it.
Click to expand...

We disagree here. Firing the Special Prosecutor might be a prerogative of the President, but when he does it to obstruct an investigation of his own criminal wrongdoing, then he has obstructed justice. In fact, one of the counts of his impeachment was obstruction of justice, and he was assisted in his obstruction by Robert Bork.
 
danarhea said:
We disagree here. Firing the Special Prosecutor might be a prerogative of the President, but when he does it to obstruct an investigation of his own criminal wrongdoing, then he has obstructed justice. In fact, one of the counts of his impeachment was obstruction of justice, and he was assisted in his obstruction by Robert Bork.
Click to expand...
Whatever your personal feelings it was the prerogative of the president to fire Cox.
Bork did the right thing in carrying out the lawful order of his president.
The president may or may not have obstructed justice. His order was still a lawful order and someone had to carry it out.

Bork was right to do it.
 
Misterveritis said:
It was not unconstitutional.

Bork did the right thing for the right reason.
Click to expand...

Nader v Bork

It was illegal... says the courts.

Supreme Court precedents were cited in Nader v. Bork; the Court has held that an executive department may not discharge one of its officers in a manner inconsistent with its own regulations. Under the Department of Justice special prosecutor charter, Mr. Cox could only be removed for ''extraordinary impropriety.'' Yet Mr. Bork chose to override Supreme Court interpretations in favor of his own narrow interpretation of the charter.

link...​

Nader is the mutha-****in' man.
 
danarhea said:
It was already mentioned earlier in this thead. Bork helped the Nixon administration attempt to cover up Watergate by obstructing justice. Bork, as part of the Nixon administration, became personally involved in this when he fired Archibald Cox, the Special Prosecutor who was investigating Nixon's attempt to cover it up.
Click to expand...
This is a lie.
Bork carried out the legitimate and lawful direction of his president to fire the special prosecutor. He did nothing wrong.
 
Misterveritis said:
Whatever your personal feelings it was the prerogative of the president to fire Cox.
Bork did the right thing in carrying out the lawful order of his president.
The president may or may not have obstructed justice. His order was still a lawful order and someone had to carry it out.

Bork was right to do it.
Click to expand...

According to the articles of impeachment, Nixon DID obstruct justice, which means that Bork carried out an unlawful order, not a lawful one.
 
danarhea said:
We disagree here. Firing the Special Prosecutor might be a prerogative of the President, but when he does it to obstruct an investigation of his own criminal wrongdoing, then he has obstructed justice. In fact, one of the counts of his impeachment was obstruction of justice, and he was assisted in his obstruction by Robert Bork.
Click to expand...
We will continue to disagree.

Bork followed a legal direction from his president. The president may fire anyone who works for him. The special prosecutor worked for him. The president had the right to do it. And Bork was right to follow his president's lawful order.
 
danarhea said:
According to the articles of impeachment, Nixon DID obstruct justice, which means that Bork carried out an unlawful order, not a lawful one.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It is not material that Nixon was charged, but not convicted of obstruction of justice.

The president had the right to demand it. And Bork was right to do it. It was a lawful order.
 
Misterveritis said:
For what? He carried out a lawful order from his president.
Click to expand...

So did Oliver North... but in both instances they were unlawful orders according to our judicial system.
 
Misterveritis said:
This is a lie.
Bork carried out the legitimate and lawful direction of his president to fire the special prosecutor. He did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

You can call it anything you want. Hell, you can call it a ham sandwich on rye, if you want to, but obstruction of justice is obstruction of justice.
 
poweRob said:
So did Oliver North... but in both instances they were unlawful orders according to our judicial system.
Click to expand...

To be honest, and give some deference to Mistervitis, impeachment is not a criminal process, but a political one. There is a lot of speculation that Nixon resigned right after being impeached in order to avoid possible criminal charges, but we will never know.
 
poweRob said:
Nader v Bork

It was illegal... says the courts.

Supreme Court precedents were cited in Nader v. Bork; the Court has held that an executive department may not discharge one of its officers in a manner inconsistent with its own regulations. Under the Department of Justice special prosecutor charter, Mr. Cox could only be removed for ''extraordinary impropriety.'' Yet Mr. Bork chose to override Supreme Court interpretations in favor of his own narrow interpretation of the charter.

link...​

Nader is the mutha-****in' man.
Click to expand...

Okay. I relent.

"The Court declares that Archibald Cox, appointed Watergate Special Prosecutor pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 0.37 (1973), was illegally discharged from that office."

I disagree but you win.
 
danarhea said:
You can call it anything you want. Hell, you can call it a ham sandwich on rye, if you want to, but obstruction of justice is obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...
No. But you win anyway. The court sided against him for illegally firing the special prosecutor. It was an administrative technicality having to do with promises to the Congress. I disagree but my disagreement does not matter.
 
danarhea said:
To be honest, and give some deference to Mistervitis, impeachment is not a criminal process, but a political one. There is a lot of speculation that Nixon resigned right after being impeached in order to avoid possible criminal charges, but we will never know.
Click to expand...

True but in Nader v Bork the court ruled Bork's actions illegal.
 
Misterveritis said:
Okay. I relent.

"The Court declares that Archibald Cox, appointed Watergate Special Prosecutor pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 0.37 (1973), was illegally discharged from that office."

I disagree but you win.
Click to expand...

Naked victory dance time.
 
Misterveritis said:
No. But you win anyway. The court sided against him for illegally firing the special prosecutor. It was an administrative technicality having to do with promises to the Congress. I disagree but my disagreement does not matter.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of very interesting stuff about Watergate. In Plamondon vs. the United States, the Supreme Court held that wiretapping was a serious crime. SCOTUS made their decision on a Friday, but instead of releasing it that day, mysteriously decided to wait until the following Monday. That weekend was when the Watergate burglars were caught. There is speculation that they were not there to bug the Democratic offices, but to remove bugs that they had already installed before, so that the Nixon administration would not run afoul of the law, because a little birdie sitting on the bench told them about the Plamondon decision when it was actually made. LOL.
 
danarhea said:
There is a lot of very interesting stuff about Watergate. In Plamondon vs. the United States, the Supreme Court held that wiretapping was a serious crime. SCOTUS made their decision on a Friday, but instead of releasing it that day, mysteriously decided to wait until the following Monday. That weekend was when the Watergate burglars were caught. There is speculation that they were not there to bug the Democratic offices, but to remove bugs that they had already installed before, so that the Nixon administration would not run afoul of the law, because a little birdie sitting on the bench told them about the Plamondon decision when it was actually made. LOL.
Click to expand...

All that criminality it took to establish legal boundries... all wiped out by the Patriot Act.
 
poweRob said:
All that criminality it took to establish legal boundries... all wiped out by the Patriot Act.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Patriot Act was nothing more than an extension of Clinton's 1994 Antiterrorism Act. But in 1994 I heard no Democrats complaining about it.
 
danarhea said:
Actually, the Patriot Act was nothing more than an extension of Clinton's 1994 Antiterrorism Act. But in 1994 I heard no Democrats complaining about it.
Click to expand...

Probably because of all the ignorace of it like mine. Did it include warrentless wiretapping and ordering phone companies to database all phone calls?
 
danarhea said:
We disagree here. Firing the Special Prosecutor might be a prerogative of the President, but when he does it to obstruct an investigation of his own criminal wrongdoing, then he has obstructed justice. In fact, one of the counts of his impeachment was obstruction of justice, and he was assisted in his obstruction by Robert Bork.
Click to expand...

If Bork followed a directive from his superior in this case are you (or anyone) suggesting that he committed a prosecutable crime...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom