In "The Gorsuch Triumph",
Ramesh Ponnuru states that Robert Bork was rejected by the Senate in
1987 "for being too conservative". This is a gross oversimplification,
and even a misstatement of, Bork's confirmation problems.
Bork's
view was that the Constitution restricted the ability of government to
limit our freedoms only to the extent of liberties specifically spelled
out in the Constititution. This is the exact opposite of what our
Founders intended. The Founders intended that "We the People" were only
giving government the powers specifically outlined in the Constitution,
with all other powers being reserved to the people. Bork's endorsement
of excessive power for the federal government, well beyond that intended
by the Founders, can hardly be called "conservative" in any meaningful
sense of the word.
But
Bork had more problems than this. He came across as aloof and
unapproachable, turning off even many of his supporters. As Senator
Howell Heflin commented, "He's too professorial".
As
documented in Ethan Bronner's "Battle for Justice: How the Bork
Nomination Shook America", Bork waffled over key issues during his
confirmation hearing, repeatedly flip-flopping back and forth. This made
him look hopelessly opportunistic, and called his character into
question. Bronner says that Bork "modified views he had held strongly
and repeated widely for two decades". His repeated waffling earned him
"the contempt of some fervent admirers".
Ponnuru
states that Bork got "burned for his candor". To the contrary, Bork
lost because he was unable to communicate his beliefs in an
understandable way, despite Committee Chairman Biden's bending over
backwards to give him a fair hearing. Consequently, the Senate rightly
concluded that he would not make a good Supreme Court justice.