About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored
A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on
Twitter and/or
BlueSky.
You know that piece about birth control says some things that raises my eyebrows. For instance,
This is not how I remember it. This is not what I’ve read about it in retrospective, either.
Democrats were unhappy with Bork, because Bork was the guy that actually fired Archibald Cox as Watergate Special Prosecutor, after two other guys (Eliot Richardson and William Ruckleshaus) refused to. Apparently Senators told Reagan that if he nominated Bork, he would have a fight on his hands.
I dunno, maybe contraception was part of the hearings, though.
The text that the Politico piece is working from looks like pandering to natalists to me. I personally doubt there is any substance to it.
And yet, it is fair game to take them at their word.
@Jay L. Gischer:
Bork was attacked during the confirmation hearings for having a number of views well outside the mainstream, most notably in a speech by Teddy Kennedy. The problem was that the attacks were generally accurate. Over the decades, the Republican Party has generally embraced Bork’s outlook, so it may not be fair to consider them outside the mainstream any more.
I was in law school at the time of his confirmation hearings, and his nickname in our discussions was “Bork from Ork” (google Mork and Mindy if that flies over your head).
@Jay L. Gischer: @Moosebreath: I recall someone saying law students referred to Bork’s antitrust law class as “pro trust law’.
I’m old enough to recall Bork’s nomination hearing. Like you, I don’t recall birth control being an issue. Of course there were so many issues I may have forgotten. WIKI has a page on Bork and one on his Court nomination. Both quote Kennedy’s remark about forcing us back to back alley abortions, but I find no other reference to contraception. Seems to me POLITICO is retconning more than a little.
It does say something that Bork’s views, properly regarded as looney tune at the time, are now in the GOP mainstream. We dodged a bullet for a decade when his nomination was defeated.
@Moosebreath: Oh no. “Bork from Ork” lands with me. Definitely. “This is Mork calling Orson, come in Orson”
I mean, yeah, Bork had a lot of non-mainstream views. AND I don’t think that’s why Democrats opposed him.
I mean, I’ve heard Robert Reich talk about him as his (Reich’s) law prof. And not as a “crazy” guy, but as somebody who asked Reich to come help him run the Justice Dept. Which Reich did.
@Jay L. Gischer: I actually recall that Bork’s views on abortion as being more front and center than the Watergate stuff. I do not recall the contraceptive thing, per se, save perhaps in the context of abortion and of Griswold v. Connecticut.
@Steven L. Taylor: Yes, as regards the actual content of the hearings, it was about abortion (and views on marijuana, I recall)
AND, the subtext was “we are never voting for that guy because reasons…” I have read this from several sources.
@Jay L. Gischer: Just to clarify, my understanding of the Bork nomination was that the Republican story was “It was about abortion” but the Democratic story was, “It was about the firing of Archibald Cox, but that was subtext”. In some sense, both of those things seem accurate. But birth control? I’m not so sure about that.
Edit: I just found this confirmation of one part of this story: Nixon offered Bork the next nomination: https://news.yahoo.com/bork-nixon-offered-next-high-131851459.html
Wikipedia’s entry has other citations to confirm this take.