Editing Robert Bork (section)

==Works and views==
[[File:Judge Robert Bork explains why he agreed to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox.webm|thumb|In 2008, Bork explained why he agreed to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor [[Archibald Cox]]]]
Bork wrote several books, including the two best-sellers ''[[The Tempting of America]]'', about his judicial philosophy and his nomination battle, and ''[[Slouching Towards Gomorrah|Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline]]'', in which he argued that the rise of the [[New Left]] in the 1960s in the U.S. undermined the [[morality|moral]] standards necessary for [[civil society]], and spawned a generation of intellectuals who oppose [[Western culture|Western civilization]]. During the period these books were written, as well as most of his adult life, Bork was an agnostic, a fact used pejoratively behind the scenes by Southern Democrats when speaking to their evangelical constituents during his Supreme Court nomination process.{{Citation needed|date=March 2019}} Bork's 1971 ''[[Indiana Law Journal]]'' article "Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems" has been identified as one of the most cited legal articles of all time.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Shapiro |first1=Fred R. |last2=Pearse |first2=Michelle |title=The Most-Cited Law Review Articles of All Time |volume=110 |journal=[[Michigan Law Review]] |pages=1483–1520 |year=2012}}</ref>

In ''The Tempting of America'', p.&nbsp;82, Bork explained his support for the Supreme Court's desegregation decision in ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'':
{{Blockquote | By 1954, when Brown came up for decision, it had been apparent for some time that segregation rarely if ever produced equality. Quite aside from any question of psychology, the physical facilities provided for blacks were not as good as those provided for whites. That had been demonstrated in a long series of cases… The Court's realistic choice, therefore, was either to abandon the quest for equality by allowing segregation or to forbid segregation in order to achieve equality. There was no third choice. Either choice would violate one aspect of the original understanding, but there was no possibility of avoiding that. Since equality and segregation were mutually inconsistent, though the ratifiers did not understand that, both could not be honored. When that is seen, it is obvious the Court must choose equality and prohibit state-imposed segregation. The purpose that brought the fourteenth amendment into being was equality before the law, and equality, not separation, was written into the law.}}{{external media| float = right| video1 = [https://www.c-span.org/video/?11444-1/the-tempting-america Interview with Bork on ''The Tempting of America'', February 26, 1990], [[C-SPAN]]| video2 = [https://www.c-span.org/video/?75525-1/slouching-gomorrah Presentation by Bork on ''Slouching Towards Gomorrah'', September 30, 1996], [[C-SPAN]]| video3 = [https://www.c-span.org/video/?76471-1/slouching-gomorrah ''Booknotes'' interview with Bork on ''Slouching Towards Gomorrah'', December 1, 1996], [[C-SPAN]]| video4 = [https://www.c-span.org/video/?178159-1/coercing-virtue Presentation by Bork on ''Coercing Virtue'', September 8, 2003], [[C-SPAN]]| video5 = [https://www.c-span.org/video/?283324-1/after-words-robert-bork ''After Words'' interview with Bork on ''A Time to Speak'', January 17, 2009], [[C-SPAN]]|}}Bork opposed the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]], saying that the provisions within the Act which prohibited [[Public accommodations|racial discrimination by public accommodations]] were based on a principle of "unsurpassed ugliness".<ref>{{Cite news|url= https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/09/16/Supreme-Court-nominee-Robert-Bork-distanced-himself-Wednesday-from/2896558763200/|title=Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork distanced himself Wednesday from… |work=UPI|access-date= September 29, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url= https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-c-dorf/a-principle-of-unsurpasse_b_5044574.html|title=A Principle of Unsurpassed Ugliness|last=Dorf|first= Michael C. |date= March 27, 2014|website=[[The Huffington Post]] |language=en-US|access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref> He came to repudiate his earlier views, saying in his 1987 confirmation hearing that the Civil Rights Act and other racial equality legislation of the 1960s "helped bring the nation together in ways which otherwise would not have occurred."<ref>{{cite report|title=Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate One Hundredth Congress First Session on the Nomination of Robert H. Bork to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States – Part 1 of 5|year=1989|docket=J–100–64|page=153|website=[[Internet Archive]]|publisher=[[United States Government Publishing Office|U.S. Government Printing Office]]|url=https://archive.org/details/bork_transcripts/Bork-1/page/n203/mode/2up|access-date=February 12, 2024}}</ref> 

Bork opposed the 1965 Supreme Court ruling in ''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]],'' which struck down a [[Connecticut]] [[Comstock laws|Comstock Act]] of 1873 that prohibited the use of [[Birth control|contraceptives]] for married couples.<ref name=.>{{cite news | last = Taylor | first=Stuart Jr. |title= Bork at Yale: {{sic|colle|gues|nolink=y}} recall a friend but a philosophical foe |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/27/us/bork-at-yale-collegues-recall-a-friend-but-a-philosophical-foe.html |work= The New York Times |date=July 27, 1987 |access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref> Bork said the decision was "utterly specious", "unprincipled" and "intellectually empty".<ref name="."/> Bork argued that the Constitution only protected speech that was "explicitly political", and that there were no free speech protections for "scientific, literary or that variety of expression we call obscene or pornographic."<ref>{{cite news |title=Judge Bork vs. Himself: Evolution of His Views |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/21/us/judge-bork-vs-himself-evolution-of-his-views.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=September 21, 1987 |access-date=September 29, 2018}}</ref>

Bork was known for his disregard for the [[Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Ninth Amendment]]. When asked about his views on unenumerated constitutional rights during his confirmation hearings by Arizona Senator [[Dennis DeConcini]], Bork famously compared the Ninth Amendment to an uninterpretable inkblot, too vague for judges to meaningfully enforce.<ref>{{cite web |last=Ward |first=Ian |title=Joe Biden's Secret Constitutional Weapon |url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/02/23/supreme-court-ninth-amendment-bork-biden-00010847 |access-date=December 27, 2022 |website=Politico  |date=February 23, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=February 3, 2008 |title=About the Law Library &#124; Law Library of Congress &#124; Research Centers &#124; Library of Congress|website=[[Library of Congress]] |url=https://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/bork/hearing-pt1.pdf |access-date=December 27, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080203083400/https://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/bork/hearing-pt1.pdf |archive-date=February 3, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Bork Nomination Day 1, Part 1 {{!}} C-SPAN.org |url=https://www.c-span.org/video/?994-1/judge-robert-bork-nomination |access-date=December 27, 2022 |website=www.c-span.org}}</ref>

In 1998, he reviewed ''[[High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton]]'', conservative pundit [[Ann Coulter]]'s book on [[Impeachment of Bill Clinton|impeaching Clinton]], pointing out that "'[[High crimes and misdemeanors]]' are not limited to actions that are crimes under federal law."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Bork |first=Robert H. |title=Thinking the unthinkable |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB904798562566698000 |journal=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |volume=232 |issue=46 |year=1998}}</ref>

In 1999, Bork wrote an essay about [[Thomas More]] and attacked [[jury nullification]] as a "pernicious practice".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9906/articles/bork.html |title=Thomas More for Our Season |access-date=August 17, 2007 |work=Leadership U |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20000819055044/http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9906/articles/bork.html |archive-date=August 19, 2000 |url-status=live}}</ref> Bork once quoted More in summarizing his judicial philosophy.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.utahpatentattorneys.com/File/c2c851b5-8b2b-4dfb-b1b7-ff7ba1ead084 |title=Regula Pro Lege, Si Deficit Lex: The Latin Sapience of High Judges |access-date=November 17, 2016 |work=The Federal Bar Association |archive-date=November 19, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161119120343/http://www.utahpatentattorneys.com/File/c2c851b5-8b2b-4dfb-b1b7-ff7ba1ead084 |url-status=dead }}</ref> In 2003, he published ''Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges'', an [[American Enterprise Institute]] book that includes Bork's philosophical objections to the phenomenon of incorporating international ethical and legal guidelines into the fabric of domestic law. In particular, he focused on problems he viewed as inherent in the federal judiciaries of Israel, Canada, and the United States—countries where he believes courts have exceeded their discretionary powers, discarded [[precedent]] and [[common law]] and instead substituted their own liberal judgment.

Bork advocated modifying the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] to allow Congressional [[supermajorities]] to override Supreme Court decisions, similar to the [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]]' [[Section Thirty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms|notwithstanding clause]]. Though Bork had many liberal critics, some of his arguments have earned criticism from conservatives as well. Although an opponent of [[gun control]],<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=22&sortorder=issue |title= Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline |access-date=January 1, 2008 |work= The Mises Review |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120825024049/https://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=22&sortorder=issue |archive-date = August 25, 2012}}</ref> Bork denounced what he called the "[[National Rifle Association of America|NRA]] view" of the [[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution|Second Amendment]], something he described as the "belief that the constitution guarantees a right to [[Teflon-coated bullet]]s." Instead, he argued that the Second Amendment merely guarantees a right to participate in a government [[militia]], that its intent was to guarantee the right of militia membership, not an individual right to bear arms.<ref name="LaTimes-UCI">{{Cite web |last=Luther |first=Claudia |date=March 15, 1989 |title=Lectures at UCI With Rose Bird : Bork Says State Gun Laws Constitutional |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-03-15-me-587-story.html |access-date=December 27, 2022 |website=Los Angeles Times |language=en-US |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200813003434/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-03-15-me-587-story.html |archive-date=August 13, 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>''Life'' Magazine, Vol 14, No. 13.</ref> He is quoted as saying that the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment was intentional deception, not "law as integrity," and that states could technically pass a ban on assault weapons.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Herz |first=Andrew |date=1995 |title=Gun Crazy: Constitutional False Consciousness and Dereliction of Dialogic Responsibility |url=https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/bulr75&section=9&casa_token=qhxQ2nBx5LoAAAAA:ZBIIstxSRMdnmB9Eg94IC8NqSrVq5PICL7efAQz8tsWVNnRR8_oyT8bO7ciXap64Qyw0PnZ3Wkc |journal=Boston University Law Review |volume=75 |via=HeinOnline |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230605115446/https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/bulr75&div=9&id=&page= |archive-date=June 5, 2023 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="LaTimes-UCI"/>

Bork converted to [[Catholic Church|Catholicism]] from Presbyterianism in 2003.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/catholic_stories/cs0048.html |title=Judge Bork Converts to the Catholic Faith |access-date=August 17, 2007 |work= National Catholic Register |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031004162744/http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/catholic_stories/cs0048.html |archive-date=October 4, 2003}}</ref>

[[File:Robert Bork.jpg|thumb|Bork in 2005]]

In October 2005, Bork publicly criticized the [[Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination|nomination of Harriet Miers]] to the Supreme Court, saying her nomination was "a disaster on every level."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/12853325.htm |title=Bush says Miers has experience, leadership |access-date=August 17, 2007 |work=[[The Mercury News]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051028094759/http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/12853325.htm |archive-date=October 28, 2005}}</ref><ref>Robert H. Bork, "[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007424 Slouching Towards Miers]", ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', October 19, 2005, p. A12.</ref>

On June 6, 2007, Bork filed suit in federal court in New York City against the [[Yale Club of New York City|Yale Club]] over an incident that had occurred a year earlier. Bork alleged that, while trying to reach the dais to speak at an event, he fell, because of the Yale Club's failure to provide any steps or handrail between the floor and the dais. (After his fall, he successfully climbed to the dais and delivered his speech.)<ref>{{cite web |url=http://chronicle.com/news/article/2456/robert-bork-cites-wanton-negligence-in-suing-yale-club-for-1-million |title=Robert Bork Cites 'Wanton' Negligence in Suing Yale Club for $1-Million |access-date=August 17, 2007 |work=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]]}}</ref> According to the complaint, Bork's injuries required surgery, immobilized him for months, forced him to use a cane, and left him with a limp.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/borksuit-060607.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071126223424/http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/borksuit-060607.pdf |archive-date=November 26, 2007 |url-status=live |title=Robert H. Bork v. The Yale Club of New York City |access-date=August 17, 2007 |work= United States Court Southern District of New York}}</ref> In May 2008, Bork and the Yale Club reached a confidential, out-of-court settlement.<ref>{{cite news|url= http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/05/10/2008-05-10_supreme_nominee_bork_settles_yale_suit.html |title=Supreme nominee Bork settles Yale suit |work=Daily News|location=New York |date=May 9, 2008 |access-date= June 20, 2010 | first= Thomas | last=Zambito | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080512082957/http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/05/10/2008-05-10_supreme_nominee_bork_settles_yale_suit.html | archive-date = May 12, 2008 |url-status=live}}</ref>

On June 7, 2007, Bork with several others authored an [[Amicus curiae|''amicus'' brief]] on behalf of [[Scooter Libby]] arguing that there was a substantial constitutional question regarding the appointment of the prosecutor in the case, reviving the debate that had previously resulted in the ''[[Morrison v. Olson]]'' decision.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.pegc.us/archive/US_v_Libby/amar_amicus_20070608.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070925200602/http://www.pegc.us/archive/US_v_Libby/amar_amicus_20070608.pdf |archive-date=September 25, 2007 |url-status=live |title=United States of America v. Lewis Libby |access-date= August 17, 2007 | publisher = United States District Court for the District of Columbia}}</ref>

On December 15, 2007, Bork endorsed [[Mitt Romney]] for president in the [[2008 United States presidential election|2008 presidential election]]. He repeated this endorsement on August 2, 2011, during Romney's second campaign for the White House.

A 2008 issue of the ''[[Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy]]'' collected essays in tribute to Bork. Authors included [[Frank H. Easterbrook]], [[George Priest]], and [[Douglas Ginsburg]].