|
|
|
|
|
The affects of Borking
|
|
|
The term “borking” originated during the Federal Judicial confirmation hearings for the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987. Largely opposed by the democrats, Bork’s nomination from Republican president Ronald Regan was rejected based on accusations of being a right-wing extremist racist and sexist and posed a threat of such opinions entering the courts. “Borking” has come to be known as a fierce campaign against nominees to reveal backgrounds that are often distorted or exaggerated in order to keep them off judicial seats. The question remains whether “borking” and judging someone on their personal views is acceptable despite the fact that judicial power is assumed to be above “politics.” The arguments for and against borking ride on a thin line of opposition. Many of them interconnect and are uncertain. When voting for a nominee for federal judicial positions, the Senate must base their decision on the philosophy the candidate holds towards the court’s role in upholding the constitution regarding issues. However, though, senators often believe nominee’s personal views towards issues will affect the way in which they will preside over federal judicial issues. Therefore, the Judiciary Committee should interrogate and examine a candidate’s personal views closely. At the same time, judges are expected not to allow their personal opinions and politics enter into court cases or to influence their enforcing of the constitution.
|
|
|
|
Still Can't Find What Your Looking For? Then Try a Essay Search!
|
