Thursday, January 12, 2006

Bork, Dujack, and Alito

After the failed nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987, a new verb was coined. To "bork" generally means to attack a presidential nominee viciously. Depending on one's perspective, the attacks are either deserved or undeserved. Even the most charitible definition of borking involves challenging a nominee based on his or her prior writings.

In the case of Judge Alito, Stephen Dujack was set to attack the Supreme Court nomination. Unfortunately for Dujack, the he had written some radical things in the past. This is particularly relevant, given that Dujack was to testify that Alito was an extremist, or at least belonged to an extremist organization. We ought to know what passes for extremist in Dujack's mind. That the charges against Alito are false is not the only noteworthy thing about the Dujack situation.

Dujack laments the Internet, which he claims exposed his public writings (but the Internet also allows him to respond instantly and report that he had already apologized). In a Los Angeles Times op/ed piece, we learn that this was going to be a big moment in the life of Dujack. Never mind the constitutional duty of the senate, the litigants who will come before Alito, or the right of Alito himself to be treated fairly, Dujack thinks this is all about Dujack. Funny thing is that he is complaining that being borked -- in this case, having old writings come back to haunt him -- prevents him from borking Alito. Seems that he can dish it out, but can't take it.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home