Rich Lowry writes in his column, Confirmation Hearings Shouldn’t be so Worthless (https://www.joplinglobe.com/opinion/columns/rich-lowry-confirmation-hearings-shouldnt-be-so-worthless/article_174e29ec-955e-540c-8294-4adbafb17af2.html) that Judge Bork was defeated because he was “acerbic and uncoachable.”
This is simply wrong. Judge Bork was defeated because:
As for being acerbic and uncoachable:
If you mean acerbic as in sharp and forthright, well yes he was. He didn’t have a choice having written so much over so many years. Perhaps being pummeled for weeks by outrageous accusations that you allowed women to be sterilized, wanted to outlaw contraception, and ban blacks from lunch counters, you would be a bit testy, too.
Uncoachable? How do you coach a man who doesn’t have a political bone in his body? He doesn’t think that way. What I think Mr. Lowry is saying without realizing it is that Judge Bork is honest and that it would have been better if he was not. He didn’t know how to dissemble like the panel sitting in front of him.
So, respectfully, Mr. Lowry has bought into the revisionist wisdom (mostly promoted by libertarians and Democrats) about my father’s confirmation defeat that tries to blame him for his loss. I suggest that had he attempted to be like all the nominees for the Court that followed him, he would have been dishonest and still would have been defeated.