but in 1987, president reagan nominated robert bork.problems was robert bork himself. >> well, i didn't say that, senator. i said it helped change my prediction of the outcome of litigation. >> robert bork was of a nature, but he couldn't resist a good argument, and he did. out of of argued himself was a seat on the supreme court. >> the democrats argued it was about robert bork's, not his qualifications, but the positions he'd taken on aspects of the constitution and that worried them. particularly issues related to right to the privacy and abortion rights. >> no appellate judge in the united states of america has a finer record. nonetheless, we have heard from some of the shrill critics of judge bork who fault him for being out of the mainstream. >> i see no place on the supreme court for someone who views equality, whether questions of race, gender or lineage, as an intellectual exercise rather than a matter of profound principle. >> the ayes are 42, the nays are 58. the nomination is not confirmed. >> democrats rejection of robert b

robert bork got up there and the point is made, and it's a good point, he spoke his mind.ou saw it in the clip. he gave them answers he felt he should give them. ever since then, and we even had mitch mcconnell on the floor saying congratulations robert bork, you basically set the bar for everybody to come after you. and now what we have at confirmation hearings that people think doesn't inform the public are these questions from the nominees that don't get answered. brian: here is a man who lived to be 100 years old, 48 years in the senate. name is strom thurmond, another south carolinian. >> i rise today in support of the amendment offered by my distinguished men from north carolina senator helms. they knew the design pattern for the confederacy. the congress began considering the extensions of design patterns early in this century. to protect and give by congress authorizations by extension of design patterns has been the most common form of proud pattern ask in recent history. brian: died in 2003 and he had a famous 100 birthday party. but unfortunately, somebody lost

original is him, originalism is a judicial doctrine created by robert bork in chicago in the 70s andhicago is a school that believes in the great books, something i like, but this is an application of the great books philosophy to the law and the constitution is the equivalent of the ancient greek texts. eternal truths are buried if we can find them. this would be a judicial doctrine that would enjoy some brief measure of success for period of time and then beer a place to buy a more fashionable theory but it stuck because it became a weapon ice weapon, weapon ice doctrine to undermine the liberal principles of the 20th century. because if they are right, the originalists claim, originally claimed the original intentions of the framers. the they changed that to the original meaning. it is more verbal than real. they want to be -- discover the mentality of the people at that moment. this to me is utterly preposterous. it is not sort of i don't completely agree. this is like are you kidding me? you are on my turf. and you can't play here. you don't know what they were saying. you haven

in the pre-robert bork era where people were civil.ll: even with booker, that kind of thing, you would have thought somebody like cory booker, presumably running for president, kamala harris or amy klobuchar, even though not in her nature to do so, to go at him. they probably wanted to, but speak to the nominee's ability to handle that, his experience. >> bill barr actually agreed with cory booker, that the prisons are overpopulated. there are too many non-violent felons in there. their lives are ruined. they belong on the streets or halfway houses on their way to the streets. i don't know cory booker expected him to say that he did, it went over swimmingly. connell: before we let you go, it will take a while for him to work his way through the committee to be voted on, take office, matt whitaker acting attorney general. we found out in the last few minutes he will testify before the house judiciary committee on 8th of february. >> they will have a field day with him. he will be exerting executive privilege. they basically want to know

for the elected officials. [ laughter ] >> as you were speaking i was thinking about how judge robert bork got in trouble in 1987 in his confirmation hearings and he was asked, and the reasons why he wanted to serve on the court he described it as an intellectual feast but got in trouble because that was regarded as being self- indulgent and careless and heartless to real-world consequences. but, i wonder , he was an original original list and i wonder whether sort of, the ascendance of textualism were all almost a normalization or legitimation of the intellectual feast, because, if, and you can use it for tactical or armed intellectualism as you set the battlefield but, to figure out the significance or the absence of the cereal, or the sequence you described, it's really an arcane intellectual enterprise and at one point that would've been viewed as quirky but now it's normalized. so, as you were speaking that is what i was thinking of . >> i think this is what some would say in response. people don't tend to be mythological, this is more a matter of emphasis and agree across judging. bu

one of the problems was robert bork himself. argument resist a good and he did.e argued himself out. >> the democrats argued it was about proper work and not his qualifications, but the position he took on some aspects of the constitution and that worried them. >> no appellate judge has a final -- finer record. nonetheless, we have heard from critics. >> i see no place on the supreme race orer questions of lineage. the a's are 42, the nays are 58. the nomination is not confirmed. >> the rejection of the nomination enhanced or contributed to heightened partisanship between the two parties and that is something which i think state with the institution. >> to robert who bought the good fight, you did your best. it is a tough contest. you happen to be the one who set the new senate standard. be answered in the abstract. >> i cannot give you a really good answer. >> i could speculate. >> nominees have figured out ways to avoid answering. >> people complain that you don't really know what the nominees think. how would you vote on this and vote on that. neutral i must r

[laughing] >> as you you are speaking i ws thinking of how judge robert bork got in trouble in 1987 when he was sitting in his confirmation hearings and he was asked among the reasons why he won to serve on the corporate he described as an intellectual feast. he got in trouble because he was, that was recorded as being self-indulgent and careless and heartless to real-world consequences. but i wonder whether, and judge a bork was unoriginal originalist of sort. i do wonder whether sort of the ascent is the factionalism, justice kagan saying we're all textualist now, is almost a normalization or legitimation of judge bork intellectual feast. because, and you can use it, tactical or an armed intellectualism as you set the battlefield. but you have to figure out the significance of the absence of a serial, or the sequence you described early on where he had all that, it's really arcane, can be arcing intellectual enterprise. at one point the wood been viewed as quirky but now it's normalized. i just wonder, that occurred to me as you were speaking. >> i think this is what some of the leadin