Would Bork be confirmed today?

[Jim Valvano]

Rejected 42-58 in an era with a Democratic controlled senate and less alternative news sources, do you think Robert Bork would be confirmed if nominated today?

[Emsworth]

Bork would almost certainly be rejected by the Senate, or at the very least successfully filibustered. Anyone who openly believes that the Constitution does not protect a general right to privacy will stand little chance of getting confirmed.

[opebo]

Bork would almost certainly be rejected by the Senate, or at the very least successfully filibustered. Anyone who openly believes that the Constitution does not protect a general right to privacy will stand little chance of getting confirmed.

What, Alito only secretly believes that?

[Akno21]

Which Republican Senators would vote against him?

Specter, Chaffee, come to mind, but there would need to be more than that.

[Emsworth]

What, Alito only secretly believes that?

Alito has affirmed his support for Griswold v. Connecticut. But then again, so did Clarence Thomas.

[A18]

Bork would be destroyed in this climate. Let's face it... the guy just wrote too much.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What, Alito only secretly believes that?

Alito has affirmed his support for Griswold v. Connecticut. But then again, so did Clarence Thomas.

Funny, Alito is a liar just like Clarence Thomas.

[© Tweed the Younger]

No.  It's not that he's more conservative than Alito or Roberts, it's just that he's too abrasive and uncordial, and is too honest.

[Jim Valvano]

Which Republican Senators would vote against him?

Specter, Chaffee, come to mind, but there would need to be more than that.

Warner voted against him in '87, and today we have many Republicans significantly more moderate than him (Hagel, McCain, Collins, Snowe)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No.  It's not that he's more conservative than Alito or Roberts, it's just that he's too abrasive and uncordial, and is too honest.

So liars like Alito get confirmed?

[Peter]

Anybody who starts calling the 9th Amendment an inkblot upon the Constitution as his rationale for rejecting the general right to privacy doesn't deserve to be confirmed. The least he could do is come up with a logically coherent argument.

[© Tweed the Younger]

No.  It's not that he's more conservative than Alito or Roberts, it's just that he's too abrasive and uncordial, and is too honest.

So liars like Alito get confirmed?

Yes, if you want to look at it that way, but Alito and Roberts will fare better than Bork did because of their less abrasive personalities more than anything else.  Alito isn't even coming out in opposition to Roe v. Wade!  Which is obviously false, but the difference between him and Bork is Bork would be happy to state his opposition to the case, while Alito won't.

[Virginian87]

Bork would almost certainly be rejected by the Senate, or at the very least successfully filibustered. Anyone who openly believes that the Constitution does not protect a general right to privacy will stand little chance of getting confirmed.

Good post.  I agree.

[Emsworth]

Anybody who starts calling the 9th Amendment an inkblot upon the Constitution as his rationale for rejecting the general right to privacy doesn't deserve to be confirmed.

Several other judges appear to hold similar views about other parts of the Constitution; Bork is merely honest about his position. For example, I cannot fathom how a judge can support Reynolds v. Sims without treating Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment as an inkblot.

[Brandon H]

Yes. With 55 Republicans, he would get at least 51.

[Smash255]

Yes. With 55 Republicans, he would get at least 51.

Wrong

Collins, Snowe, Chafee, Specter, Warner, McCain would all vote against him.   Grahm, Hagel, Sununu, and possibly Dewine as well could also vote against him, a few others possible as well.