Romney’s Court Advisor: Robert Bork

This is not good news for gun owners, or Second Amendment advocates, given that Bork is a well known advocate of collective right theory. Of course, this also isn’t the end of the world, given that Bork won’t be choosing himself. There won’t be too many candidates on Romney’s short list that will be embracers of collective rights. There are a few, however, and we have to watch out for them. The big fear is that Romney doesn’t really understand the subtleties of “conservatism:, since he is not one himself, and attempts to pander in a ridiculous and stupid way, using logic like “Reagan appointed Bork, conservatives love Reagan and therefore conservatives must also love Bork.”

Bush bungled a nomination too, with Harriet Meyers, but we had the benefit of other parts of the right-of-center coalition being unhappy. The real risk, and this risk was present with Bush, is that Romney would pick someone acceptable to other parts of the movement, except for gun owners, and we standing alone don’t have the power to scuttle the nominee. But whether we can do that or not is up to us; we certainly have the people power enough to accomplish it.

18 thoughts on “Romney’s Court Advisor: Robert Bork”

  1. BORK!? ZOMG! Doesn’t Romney realize just how Stupid that is? About 25% of those Liberals sitting in Congress TODAY was there when they tried to DESTROY Bork back in the ’80s! Hell, I remember Biden ranting about him! Doesn’t Romney KNOW that this will drive the MSM and the Dems and the LGBTG Community INSANE? And if thinks that will win Votes, well, he’d be better off saying “Elect Me! FREE Smallpox for Everyone!”

    God, no wonder Obama is acting as if he’s already Won!

  2. I’ve met Bork (about 5 years ago at a Fed Soc event) and he was senile and practically on death’s door. There is no way this guy is advising anyone.

    1. Now that I’ve seen the list, I can’t help but think “The list is so long, does being on such an advisory committee have any meaning?”

    1. If your supposition was “Romney doesn’t have enough of his own challenges and needs to borrow the problems of others“, then I think you were certainly correct.

  3. See Patrick’s post above.

    These “advisory” committees are mostly BS. Basically they are a way to send signals out to different constituencies. The left, of course, is up in arms over Bork because of abortion. And, Romney, probably added Bork’s name to the list because it firms up large elements of the shaky right.

    In all, it amounts to zero impact substantively. Lots of political posturing. And often times carries with it a healthy amount of $$$$ (at least in other areas, you need to be a major contributor or carry lots of votes to land one of these titles)

    Gura is on to shore up the gun owners. Bork to shore up the christian right. and others. And, as Jim W says, the guy isn’t advising anyone. He’s on death’s doorstep.

    1. Agreed. I was on a legislators advisory council for several years and all I got out of it was a certificate in the mail once a year saying I was a member.

      1. Yep. I’m actually trying my darnedest to get on one for Romney. It does wonders for client development. It means little to nothing in terms of actual impact.

  4. I think he was picked for his anti-trust works and his favoring mergers. Think AT&T and T-Mobile, and the justice department screwing the consumer.

  5. The good news is that while Bork at least at one time was in the collective rights model, he regarded gun control as bad policy. See this excerpt from Slouching Towards Gomorrah:

    The real argument against severe gun control is one of policy, not constitutionality.

    As law professor Daniel Polsby demonstrates, “the conventional wisdom about guns and violence is mistaken. Guns don’t increase national rates of crime and violence – but the continued proliferation of gun control laws almost certainly does.” Gun control laws raise the cost of obtaining a firearm. This is a cost the criminal will willingly pay because a gun is essential to the business he is in. He probably will not have to pay the increased cost, because illicit markets adapt to overcome difficulties. There are, moreover, nearly 200,000,000 firearms in the United States now, many of them unregistered, and it is easy to smuggle guns in or to make them in basements and garages.

    A gun need not be state of the art to serve a criminal’s purpose. Criminals will never have difficulty getting guns. The citizen who wants a firearm for self-defense will not have access to illicit markets and will be deterred by the higher costs charged in legal transactions. The result is a steady supply of guns for criminal aggression and a diminished supply for self-defense.

  6. I guess everyone should have voted for a real small-government, pro-gun, HONEST guy like Ron Paul.

    Rumors are Romney might make Mayor Bloomberg his VP.

    Big-government fake conservatives reap what they sow.

    1. Aren’t those rumors based on reports that they had a secret breakfast meeting? As Prof. Stephen Clark said to the Instapundit:

      I’m LMAO at this story. My reading of it is that Bloomberg is so radioactive that in secret is only way that Romney can huddle with the mayor of NYC. Savor it. Proof that Bloomberg is a troll: the mayor of NYC stinks so badly that Romney can only meet him in secret.

      He then theorized this might be about “ferreting out intent of third party mischief”.

  7. “Gura is on to shore up the gun owners. Bork to shore up the christian right. . .”

    I can’t help but wonder, don’t they and other people of their stature know they are being used, and in the most cynical way? And if they know it, what was the quid pro quo that was offered in return?

    It is one thing for us country rubes to be flattered to be asked to be on, say, a candidate’s “Sportsmen’s Advisory Board” or something, but after you’ve been around and more or less awake for a decade or two, shouldn’t you catch on?

    Or do they really believe a candidate who tries to appear to be all things to all constituencies?

    1. I won’t speak for anyone on that list, but if you support a candidate and they call and ask, “Hey, could we drop your name on our website as a supporter?”, then many would say, “go for it.”

      Does it have to be more than that?

      I don’t see Bork, Gura or any of those folks crafting campaign strategy or making “judicial guidance”.

      I think Romney will pay a nifty price for Bork with one of the demographic groups he needs – independent women voters. Bork’s views have never resonated there. I think Romney could have messaged the right using someone less creepy.

      But nobody asks me anything. For a reason. ;)

Comments are closed.