The nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987 remains one of the most divisive and intensely scrutinized in United States history. On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected his appointment, marking a pivotal moment in the politicization of judicial nominations. To understand this rejection, it’s crucial to delve into Why Were The Senators Concerned About Bork.
The journey to this contentious Senate vote began with President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Bork, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Bork, a Yale Law School graduate and former Solicitor General, possessed a formidable intellect and a reputation as a staunch conservative legal scholar. His advocacy for originalism, a philosophy emphasizing the Constitution’s original intent, was central to his judicial identity and a key source of concern for many senators.
However, it was Bork’s deeply conservative ideology and his extensive writings that ignited a firestorm of opposition. Concerns coalesced around several key areas, leading to the Senate’s unprecedented rejection of a Supreme Court nominee.
Bork’s Stance on Civil Rights: A Troubling Past
One of the most significant reasons for senatorial concern was Bork’s record on civil rights. Dating back to the early 1960s, Bork had been a vocal critic of expansive civil rights legislation. In a 1963 New Republic article, he opposed the public accommodations section of what would become the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. This opposition, written at a time when the Civil Rights Movement was reaching its peak, raised serious questions about his commitment to racial equality.
Critics argued that Bork’s stance demonstrated a fundamental disagreement with the principle of federal intervention to protect minority rights against discrimination. For senators who had fought for and witnessed the transformative impact of the Civil Rights Act, Bork’s past writings were deeply unsettling. They questioned whether he would uphold and expand upon civil rights protections as a Supreme Court Justice, or whether he would seek to roll them back.
Abortion Rights and Roe v. Wade: A Battleground Issue
Another major point of contention was Bork’s well-known criticism of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which established a woman’s constitutional right to abortion. Bork was a vocal opponent of Roe, arguing that it was an unconstitutional example of judicial overreach, lacking any basis in the text or original intent of the Constitution.
This position alarmed senators who believed in protecting abortion rights. By 1987, Roe v. Wade had become a deeply entrenched and highly politicized issue in American society. For pro-choice senators, Bork’s appointment represented a direct threat to the established right to abortion and the potential for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe. The prospect of a Justice with Bork’s views shaping the future of reproductive rights was a major catalyst for opposition.
The “Borking” of a Nomination: Senator Kennedy’s Powerful Opposition
The opposition to Bork’s nomination was not merely a matter of policy disagreements; it became a highly charged political battle, fueled in part by a powerful and now infamous statement from Senator Ted Kennedy. On the very day of Bork’s nomination, Kennedy delivered a blistering attack, painting a dystopian vision of “Robert Bork’s America.”
Kennedy’s statement, quoted in the original article, was a dramatic and emotionally charged indictment of Bork’s judicial philosophy. While Bork himself felt every word was false, Kennedy’s rhetoric resonated with many and galvanized opposition. It framed the debate in stark terms, portraying Bork as an extremist whose confirmation would fundamentally undermine civil liberties and individual rights.
This aggressive opposition, coupled with well-funded advocacy groups, effectively “borked” the nomination, turning “Bork” into a verb meaning to systematically vilify a nominee to prevent their confirmation. The intensity and public nature of this campaign marked a new era in the confirmation process, one where nominees’ ideologies and past writings were subjected to unprecedented scrutiny.
Concerns About Judicial Philosophy and the Role of the Court
Beyond specific issues like civil rights and abortion, senators were also concerned about Bork’s broader judicial philosophy, particularly his commitment to originalism. While originalism is a recognized legal theory, critics worried that Bork’s rigid adherence to it would lead to an overly narrow and inflexible interpretation of the Constitution, ill-suited to address modern societal challenges.
There were concerns that Bork’s originalism could lead to the dismantling of established legal precedents and a rollback of progressive social change. Senators questioned whether his judicial philosophy would adequately protect individual rights and liberties in a rapidly evolving world. This broader philosophical concern, combined with his specific stances on key issues, solidified the opposition to his nomination.
Conclusion: A Confluence of Concerns
In conclusion, the Senate’s rejection of Robert Bork was driven by a confluence of concerns. His record on civil rights, his opposition to Roe v. Wade, the powerful political opposition led by figures like Senator Kennedy, and anxieties about his rigid originalist judicial philosophy all contributed to his defeat. Why were the senators concerned about Bork? Because they believed his confirmation would fundamentally alter the Supreme Court’s direction, potentially jeopardizing established rights and liberties, and ushering in a more conservative and restrictive legal landscape. The “Bork” nomination remains a landmark case study in the intense political battles that can surround Supreme Court appointments and the profound ideological divides within American society.
