“I loved what happened in the Bork hearings. … The Bork hearings were great. The Bork hearings were educational.”

–Elena Kagan on Breitbart TV.

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, but the Senate rejected his nomination following an intensely partisan debate led by Senators Ted (now dead) Kennedy and Joe (teats on a boar) Biden.

The Bork confirmation hearings were arguably the most contentious in the two-hundred-year history of the U.S. Constitution. The hearings were nothing more than a witch hunt to slander and smear a great legal mind to gain ideological control over the Court and the Constitution.

The majority of the senators who questioned Bork were focused on his vilification, not his jurisprudence. In particular, Kennedy used slanderous accusations and outright lies to demonize him.

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan … should not be able to … impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.”

–Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) quoted on Power Line.

The Economist agreed with Bork that

“There was not a line in Ted Kennedy’s speech that was accurate.”

Kennedy’s excoriating witch hunt worked so well to discredit the judge, whose legal competence and personal integrity were beyond doubt, that the word “borked” was invented as a verb to describe a Supreme Court or federal judgeship nominee who was denied confirmation as a result of sustained public disparagement.

Bork was rejected because he viewed the Constitution as the “the Founders’ Constitution” bound by original intent and not as a “living” instrument subjected to the interpretive whims of a leftist judiciary.

“You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.”

–Charles Austin Beard from Wikiquote.

Bork argued that the court’s task is to adjudicate and not to “legislate from the bench”; i.e., judges should restrain from ad hoc pronouncements or subjective value judgments in deciding cases.

“We are increasingly governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no law other than their own will.”

–Judge Robert Bork as quoted in Eagle Forum.

The rule of law and the Constitution would be more secure had Bork joined Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas on the high court, but instead the Senate will likely add another Brother O lackey to join Sotomayor, only this one doesn’t know that we live in a Constitutional Republic not a Constitutional Democracy.

“The Bork hearings were the best thing that ever happened to Constitutional Democracy.”

–Elena Kagan on Breitbart TV.

Not only are the two aforementioned forms of government dissimilar, they are antithetical. From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles:

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

In a democracy, the power of the majority is unlimited lacking legal safeguards to protect the rights of the individual and the minority; in a republic, the power of the majority is limited by a constitution safeguarding the rights of the individual and the minority.

According to Bork, Kagan’s regard for the Israeli Supreme Court’s quintessential activist judge Aharon Barak as her “judicial hero” disqualifies her to sit on the Supreme Court. Kagan’s acclamation of Barak, whom Bork considers “the worst judge on the planet” and whom federal appeals court judge Richard Posner says “is a law unto himself,” reveals her potential as an activist justice.

“I try to be guided by my North Star, which is justice. I try to make law and justice converge, so that the Justice will do justice.”

–Aharon Barak, Israeli Supreme Court justice, as quoted in National Review.

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter” when it’s their world view they share, and not just rhetoric.

If Senate Republicans cared as much about the Constitution and the political direction of the country as they do about maintaining a cordial relationship with leftist Democrats and the lapdog media, they would to do a time-limited filibuster of Kagan until after the August recess to make her confirmation hearings as educational for Americans as Bork’s were for her.

Instead of filing charges against ACORN employees for criminal violations captured on tape by hidden camera, Baltimore City State’s Attorney is looking to prosecute two investigative reporters for violating Maryland’s wiretap laws in filming the group’s lawbreaking acts.

State’s Attorney Patricia Coats Jessamy, a Brother O supporter and contributor who worked on the Maryland Women for Obama Steering Committee, issued the following statement concerning the criminal acts committed by the Association of Community Organizations For Reform Now (ACORN) employees at its Baltimore office:

“The only information received in reference to this alleged criminal behavior was a YouTube video…. [T]he audio portion could possibly have been obtained in violation of Maryland Law, Annotated Code of Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article §10-402, which requires two party consent.

If it is determined that the audio portion now being heard on YouTube was illegally obtained, it is also illegal under Maryland Law to willfully use or willfully disclose the content of said audio. The penalty for the unlawful interception, disclosure or use of it is a felony punishable up to 5 years.” [emphasis mine]

Jessamy, who has held the office since 1995, is looking to prosecute 20 year-old journalist Hannah Giles and 25-year old film maker James O’Keefe for failing to acquire ACORN’s permission to expose its heinous underbelly to the world. A nonpartisan state’s attorney would be looking to prosecute ACORN as a criminal enterprise under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes.

In the video, O’Keefe and Giles show up on ACORN’s stoop seeking advice for purchasing a house to serve as a brothel. O’Keefe poses as a pimp with plans to run for Congress, and Giles is his prostitute girlfriend who intends to staff their brothel with smuggled teenage girls from El Salvador.

After making their intentions known to the ACORN workers, O’Keefe and Giles are given instructions on how to go about getting a loan to purchase the house, with further advice to list the girls as dependents on their tax returns and to train them to keep quiet about the prostitution activities.

Jessamy seems to be more interested in prosecuting violations of unauthorized taping than in prosecuting “child abuse, interstate transportation for purposes of prostitution, tax evasion,” and illegal immigration violations that may have been committed by the ACORN workers.

If Jessamy has an obsession with enforcing Maryland’s unauthorized taping law and prosecuting its violators, she fought her compulsion to selectively apply Maryland’s law on at least two occasions in 2006 and in 2000 when WMAR-TV in Baltimore used “undercover journalists with cameras to record people without their knowledge, and won awards for their efforts.”

But that was then, and 2009 is now, so when two young journalists with hidden cameras go undercover to expose a group of lawbreakers that support Brother O’s politics and policies, for Jessamy it’s more a matter of aligning with kindred spirits than with the rule of law.

Jessamy is obviously more interested in protecting fellow travelers and in enforcing the law against those who threaten Brother O’s power and policies than in carrying out her sworn duty and in upholding her oath of office.

If Jessamy presses to file charges down-the-road, will any fair-minded person look on her prosecution as anything but retaliation for uncovering the criminal activities of her president’s favorite group of community organizers? Will fair-minded people regard her authoritative actions as anything other than a tread-lightly warning for anyone who dares to uncover and expose the misdeeds of Brother O’s Obots?

I think not.