Robert Bork | |
|---|---|
 Bork in 2005 | |
| Judge of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | |
| In office February 9, 1982 – February 5, 1988 | |
| Appointed by | Ronald Reagan |
| Preceded by | Carl E. McGowan |
| Succeeded by | Clarence Thomas |
| United States Attorney General | |
| Acting October 20, 1973 – January 4, 1974 | |
| President | Richard Nixon |
| Deputy | Vacant |
| Preceded by | William Ruckelshaus (acting) |
| Succeeded by | William B. Saxbe |
| 35thSolicitor General of the United States | |
| In office March 21, 1973 – January 20, 1977 | |
| President | |
| Preceded by | Erwin Griswold |
| Succeeded by | Wade H. McCree |
| Personal details | |
| Born | Robert Heron Bork (1927-03-01)March 1, 1927 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S. |
| Died | December 19, 2012(2012-12-19) (aged 85) |
| Resting place | Fairfax Memorial Park |
| Political party | Republican |
| Spouses | |
| Children | 3 |
| Education | University of Chicago (BA,JD) |
| Military service | |
| Allegiance |  United States |
| Branch/service |  United States Marine Corps |
| Rank |  Second lieutenant |
| Battles/wars | Korean War |
Robert Heron "Bob"Bork (March 1, 1927 – December 19, 2012) was an American legal scholar who served assolicitor general of the United States from 1973 until 1977. A law professor by training, he was actingUnited States Attorney General from 1973 to 1974 and a judge on theU.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1982 to 1988. In 1987, PresidentRonald Reagan nominated Bork to theU.S. Supreme Court, but theSenate rejected his nomination after a contentious andhighly publicized confirmation hearing.
Bork was born inPittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and received both his undergraduate and legal education at theUniversity of Chicago. After working at the law firms ofKirkland & Ellis andWillkie Farr & Gallagher, he served as a professor at Yale Law School. He became a prominent advocate oforiginalism, calling for judges to adhere to the original understanding of theUnited States Constitution, and an influentialantitrust scholar, arguing that consumers often benefited fromcorporate mergers and thatantitrust law should focus onconsumer welfare rather than on ensuring competition. Bork wrote several notable books, including a scholarly work titledThe Antitrust Paradox[1] and a work of cultural criticism titledSlouching Towards Gomorrah.
From 1973 to 1977, he served as Solicitor General under PresidentsRichard Nixon andGerald Ford, successfully arguing several cases before the Supreme Court. During the October 1973Saturday Night Massacre, Bork became actingU.S. Attorney General after his superiors in theU.S. Justice Department chose to resign rather than fireSpecial ProsecutorArchibald Cox, who was investigating theWatergate scandal. Following an order from President Nixon, Bork fired Cox as his first assignment as Acting Attorney General. Bork served as Acting Attorney General until January 4, 1974, and was succeeded byOhio U.S. SenatorWilliam B. Saxbe.[2]
In 1982, President Reagan appointed Bork to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In 1987, Reagan nominated Bork to replace retiring Supreme Court JusticeLewis Powell. His nomination attracted unprecedented media attention and efforts by interest groups to mobilize opposition to his confirmation,[3] primarily due to his outspoken criticism of theWarren andBurger Courts and his role in theSaturday Night Massacre. His nomination was ultimately rejected in the Senate, 42–58, and the vacancy was filled byAnthony Kennedy. Bork resigned from his judgeship in 1988, taking up a career as an author. He served as a professor at various institutions, including theGeorge Mason University School of Law. He advised presidential candidateMitt Romney, and was a fellow at theAmerican Enterprise Institute and at theHudson Institute.
Bork was born on March 1, 1927, inPittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[4][5] He was the only child of Harry Philip Bork Jr. (1897–1974), a steel company purchasing agent, and Elizabeth (née Kunkle; 1898–2004), a schoolteacher.[6] His father was of German and Irish ancestry, while his mother was ofPennsylvania German descent.[7]
Bork attended theHotchkiss School inLakeville, Connecticut.[8] He later recalled that he spent his time there "reading books and arguing with people".[5] He then attended theUniversity of Chicago, where he was a member of the international social fraternityPhi Gamma Delta and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in 1948. He then attended theUniversity of Chicago Law School, where he was an editor of theUniversity of Chicago Law Review. He graduated in 1953 with aJ.D. degree and membership in theOrder of the Coif andPhi Beta Kappa. While in law school, Bork took a two-year leave of absence to serve in theU.S. Marine Corps during theKorean War.
After law school, Bork spent another year in military service. From 1954 to 1962, he was in private practice at the law firmsKirkland & Ellis andWillkie Farr & Gallagher.[5][9] In 1962, Bork left private practice and joined the faculty ofYale Law School as a professor. He taught at Yale from 1962 to 1981, with a four-year break from 1973 to 1977 when he served as U.S. Solicitor General. Among Bork's students at Yale Law wereBill Clinton,Hillary Clinton,Anita Hill,Robert Reich,Jerry Brown,Linda Greenhouse,John Bolton,Samuel Issacharoff, andCynthia Estlund.[10][11]
As a law professor, Bork was best known for his 1978 bookThe Antitrust Paradox, in which he argued that consumers often benefited from corporate mergers, and that many contemporary readings of theantitrust laws were economically irrational and hurt consumers. He posited that the primary focus of antitrust laws should be on consumer welfare, including producer welfare and consumer welfare, rather than ensuring competition, for fostering competition of companies within an industry has a natural built-in tendency to allow, and even help, many poorly run companies with methodologies and practices that are both inefficient and expensive to continue in business simply for the sake of competition, to the detriment of both consumers and society. Bork's writings on antitrust law, with those ofRichard Posner and otherlaw and economics andChicago School thinkers, have been influential in causing a shift in the Supreme Court's approach to antitrust laws since the 1970s. Bork also supports using anticompetitive practices within the text as useful business practices. (e.g. exclusive deals, mergers, price fixing, etc.)[12][13][1]
Bork served asSolicitor General in theU.S. Department of Justice from March 1973[14] until 1977. As Solicitor General, he argued several high-profile cases before the Supreme Court in the 1970s, including 1974'sMilliken v. Bradley, where his brief in support of theState of Michigan was influential among the justices. Chief JusticeWarren Burger called Bork the most effective counsel to appear before the court during his tenure. Bork hired many young attorneys as assistants who went on to have successful careers, including judgesDanny Boggs andFrank H. Easterbrook as well asRobert Reich, laterSecretary of Labor in the Clinton administration.
(Gerald_Ford_Library)_(cropped).jpg)
On October 20, 1973, Solicitor General Bork was part of the "Saturday Night Massacre" when PresidentRichard Nixon ordered the firing ofWatergate Special ProsecutorArchibald Cox following Cox's request for tapes of hisOval Office conversations. Nixon initially orderedU.S. Attorney GeneralElliot Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson resigned rather than carry out the order. Richardson's top deputy,Deputy Attorney GeneralWilliam Ruckelshaus, also considered the order "fundamentally wrong"[15] and resigned, making Bork Acting Attorney General.
When Nixon reiterated his order, Bork complied and fired Cox. Bork claimed he carried out the order under pressure from Nixon's attorneys and intended to resign immediately afterward, but was persuaded by Richardson and Ruckelshaus to stay on for the good of the Justice Department.[16] Bork remained Acting Attorney General until the appointment ofWilliam B. Saxbe on January 4, 1974.[17] In his posthumously published memoirs, Bork claimed that after he carried out the order, Nixon promised him the next seat on the Supreme Court,[16] though Bork did not take the offer seriously as he believed Watergate had left Nixon too politically compromised to appoint another justice. Nixon never had the chance to carry out his promise, as the next Supreme Court vacancy came afterNixon resigned andGerald Fordassumed the presidency, with Ford instead appointingJohn Paul Stevens following the 1975 retirement ofWilliam O. Douglas. Ford considered nominating Bork to replaceWilliam Colby asCIA Director, but his advisors convinced him to turn first toEdward Bennett Williams and thenGeorge H. W. Bush instead due to Bork's unpopularity and lack of experience in intelligence.[18]
Bork was a circuit judge for theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1982 to 1988. He was nominated by PresidentRonald Reagan on December 7, 1981, was confirmed via voice vote by the Senate on February 8, 1982,[19][20] and received his commission on February 9, 1982.
One of Bork's opinions while on the D.C. Circuit wasDronenburg v. Zech, 741 F.2d 1388,[21] decided in 1984. The case involved James L. Dronenburg, a sailor who had been administratively discharged from theUnited States Navy for engaging inhomosexual conduct. Dronenburg argued that his discharge violated hisright to privacy. His argument was rejected in an opinion written by Bork and joined byAntonin Scalia, in which Bork critiqued the line of Supreme Court cases upholding a right to privacy.[21]
In rejecting Dronenburg's suggestion for a rehearingen banc, the D.C. Circuit issued four separate opinions, including one by Bork (again joined by Scalia), who wrote that "no principle had been articulated [by the Supreme Court] that enabled us to determine whether appellant's case fell within or without that principle."[22]
In 1986, President Reagan considered nominating Bork to the Supreme Court afterChief JusticeWarren E. Burger retired. Reagan ultimately nominated then-Associate JusticeWilliam Rehnquist to be the next Chief Justice and Bork's D.C. Circuit colleague,Antonin Scalia, for Rehnquist's Associate Justice seat. Some journalists and correspondents believed that if Reagan nominated Bork in 1986, Bork would have likely made the Supreme Court, as the Senate at that time was controlled by the Republicans. However, the Senate Democrats might still have fought to defeat Bork in 1986, and the Republicans' Senate majority at the time was narrow (53–47), which implies that maybe Bork still would have been defeated in 1986, especially when the six Republicans[23] who voted against Bork's 1987 nomination were not first elected in theNovember 1986 Senate elections.[24]
President Reagan nominated Bork for associate justice of theSupreme Court on July 1, 1987, to replace retiring Associate JusticeLewis F. Powell Jr. A hotly contestedUnited States Senate debate over Bork's nomination ensued. Opposition was partly fueled by civil rights and women's rights groups, concerned about Bork's opposition to the authority claimed by thefederal government to impose standards of voting fairness upon states (at his confirmation hearings for the position of solicitor general, he supported the rights of Southern states to impose apoll tax),[25] and his stated desire to roll back civil rights decisions of theWarren andBurger courts. Bork is one of four Supreme Court nominees (along withWilliam Rehnquist,Samuel Alito, andBrett Kavanaugh) to have been opposed by theAmerican Civil Liberties Union.[26][27] Bork was criticized for being an "advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy",[15] most notably, according to critics, for his role in theSaturday Night Massacre.
Before Justice Powell's expected retirement on June 27, 1987, some Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to "form a 'solid phalanx' of opposition" if President Reagan nominated an "ideological extremist" to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward.[28] Democrats warned Reagan there would be a fight if Bork were nominated.[29] Nevertheless, Reagan nominated Bork for Powell's seat on July 1, 1987.
Following Bork's nomination, SenatorTed Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of him, declaring:
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. ... The damage that President Reagan will do through this nomination, if it is not rejected by the Senate, could live on far beyond the end of his presidential term. President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and 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.[30][31]
Bork responded, "There was not a line in that speech that was accurate."[32] In an obituary of Kennedy,The Economist remarked that Bork may well have been correct, "but it worked".[32] Bork contended in his book,The Tempting of America, that the brief prepared for then-SenatorJoe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, "so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility."[33] Opponents of Bork's nomination found the arguments against him justified, claiming that Bork believed the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional, and he supported poll taxes, literacy tests for voting, mandated school prayer, and sterilization as a requirement for a job, while opposing free speech rights for non-political speech and privacy rights for gay conduct.[34]
In 1988, an analysis published inThe Western Political Quarterly ofamicus curiae briefs filed byU.S. Solicitors General during theWarren andBurger courts found that during Bork's tenure in the position during theNixon andFord Administrations (1973–1977), Bork took liberal positions in the aggregate as often asThurgood Marshall did during theJohnson Administration (1965–1967) and more often thanWade H. McCree did during theCarter Administration (1977–1981), in part because Bork filed briefs in favor of the litigants in civil rights cases 75 percent of the time.[35][36]
Television advertisements produced byPeople For the American Way and narrated byGregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist. Kennedy's speech successfully fueled widespread public skepticism of Bork's nomination. The rapid response to Kennedy's "Robert Bork's America" speech stunned the Reagan White House, and the accusations went unanswered for2+1⁄2 months.[37]
During debate over his nomination,Bork's video rental history was leaked to the press. His video rental history was unremarkable, and included such harmless titles asA Day at the Races,Ruthless People, andThe Man Who Knew Too Much. Writer Michael Dolan, who obtained a copy of the hand-written list of rentals, wrote about it for theWashington City Paper.[38] Dolan justified accessing the list on the ground that Bork himself had stated that Americans had only such privacy rights as afforded them by direct legislation. The incident led to the enactment of the 1988Video Privacy Protection Act.[39][40]
To pro-choice rights legal groups, Bork'soriginalist views and his belief that the Constitution did not contain a general "right to privacy" were viewed as a clear signal that, should he become a justice of the Supreme Court, he would vote to completely overrule the Court's 1973 decision inRoe v. Wade. Accordingly, a large number of groups mobilized to press for Bork's rejection, and the 1987 Senate confirmation hearings became an intensely partisan battle.
On October 23, 1987, the Senate denied Bork's confirmation, with 42 senators voting in favor and 58 senators voting against. Two Democratic senators (David Boren ofOklahoma, andFritz Hollings ofSouth Carolina) voted in favor of his nomination, while six Republican senators (John Chafee ofRhode Island,Bob Packwood ofOregon,Arlen Specter ofPennsylvania,Robert Stafford ofVermont,John Warner ofVirginia, andLowell Weicker ofConnecticut) voted against it.[41][42] His defeat in the Senate was the worst of any Supreme Court nominee sinceGeorge Washington Woodward was defeated 20–29 in 1845, and the third-worst on record.
The seat to which Bork had been nominated went to JudgeAnthony Kennedy, who was unanimously approved by the Senate, 97–0.[43] Bork, unhappy with his treatment in the nomination process, resigned his appellate court judgeship in 1988.[44]
According to columnistWilliam Safire, the first published use of "bork" as a verb was possibly inThe Atlanta Journal-Constitution of August 20, 1987, two months prior to the final vote: "Let's just hope something enduring results for the justice-to-be, like a new verb: Borked."[45] A well known use of the verb "to bork" occurred in July 1991 at a conference of theNational Organization for Women in New York City. FeministFlorynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating thenomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying: "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. This little creep, where did he come from?"[46] Thomas was confirmed after the most divisive confirmation hearing in Supreme Court history to that point.
In March 2002, theOxford English Dictionary added an entry for the verb "bork" as U.S. political slang, with this definition: "To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually to prevent his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way."[47] Supreme Court JusticeBrett Kavanaugh, who occupies the seat Bork was nominated to, used the term during his owncontentious Senate confirmation hearing testimony, when he stated: "The behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee at my hearing a few weeks ago was an embarrassment. But at least it was just a good old-fashioned attempt at borking."[48]
Following his failure to be confirmed, Bork resigned his seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and was for several years both a professor atGeorge Mason University School of Law and a senior fellow at theAmerican Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. He consulted forNetscape in theMicrosoft litigation.
Bork later served as a fellow at theHudson Institute, a visiting professor at theUniversity of Richmond School of Law and a professor atAve Maria School of Law inNaples, Florida.[49] In 2011, he worked as a legal adviser for thepresidential campaign of RepublicanMitt Romney.[50]
Bork is known byAmerican conservatives for his theory that the best way to reconcile the role of the judiciary in the U.S. government against what he terms the "Madisonian" or"counter-majoritarian" dilemma of the judiciary making law without popular approval is for constitutional adjudication to be guided by the framers'original understanding of theUnited States Constitution.[51] Reiterating that it is a court's task to adjudicate and not to "legislate from the bench," he advocated thatjudges exercise restraint in deciding cases, emphasizing that the role of the courts is to frame "neutral principles" (a term borrowed fromHerbert Wechsler) and not simplyad hoc pronouncements or subjective value judgments. Bork once said, "The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else."[52]
Bork built on the influential critiques of theWarren Court authored byAlexander Bickel, who criticized the Supreme Court underEarl Warren, alleging shoddy and inconsistent reasoning, undueactivism, and misuse of historical materials. Bork's critique was harder-edged than Bickel's, writing: "We are increasingly governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own." Bork's writings influenced judges such asAssociate JusticeAntonin Scalia andChief JusticeWilliam Rehnquist of theU.S. Supreme Court, and sparked vigorous debate within legal academia about how tointerpret the Constitution.
Some conservatives criticized Bork's approach. Conservative scholarHarry Jaffa criticized Bork (along with Rehnquist and Scalia) for failing to adhere tonatural law principles, and therefore believing that the Constitution says nothing about abortion orgay rights (Jaffa believed that the Constitutionprohibited these things.)[53][54]Robert P. George explained Jaffa's critique this way: "He attacks Rehnquist and Scalia and Bork for their embrace oflegal positivism that is inconsistent with the doctrine ofnatural rights that is embedded in the Constitution they are supposed to be interpreting."[53] Jaffa attacked Bork as insufficiently conservative.[55] Bork, in turn, described adherents of natural law constitutionalism as fanatical.[56]
Bork wrote several books, including the two best-sellersThe Tempting of America, about his judicial philosophy and his nomination battle, andSlouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, in which he argued that the rise of theNew Left in the 1960s in the U.S. undermined themoral standards necessary forcivil society, and spawned a generation of intellectuals who opposeWestern civilization. During the period these books were written, as well as most of his adult life, Bork was an agnostic, a fact used pejoratively behind the scenes by Southern Democrats when speaking to their evangelical constituents during his Supreme Court nomination process.[citation needed] Bork's 1971Indiana Law Journal article "Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems" has been identified as one of the most cited legal articles of all time.[57]
InThe Tempting of America, p. 82, Bork explained his support for the Supreme Court's desegregation decision inBrown v. Board of Education:
By 1954, when Brown came up for decision, it had been apparent for some time that segregation rarely if ever produced equality. Quite aside from any question of psychology, the physical facilities provided for blacks were not as good as those provided for whites. That had been demonstrated in a long series of cases… The Court's realistic choice, therefore, was either to abandon the quest for equality by allowing segregation or to forbid segregation in order to achieve equality. There was no third choice. Either choice would violate one aspect of the original understanding, but there was no possibility of avoiding that. Since equality and segregation were mutually inconsistent, though the ratifiers did not understand that, both could not be honored. When that is seen, it is obvious the Court must choose equality and prohibit state-imposed segregation. The purpose that brought the fourteenth amendment into being was equality before the law, and equality, not separation, was written into the law.
Bork opposed theCivil Rights Act of 1964, saying that the provisions within the Act which prohibitedracial discrimination by public accommodations were based on a principle of "unsurpassed ugliness".[58][59] He came to repudiate his earlier views, saying in his 1987 confirmation hearing that the Civil Rights Act and other racial equality legislation of the 1960s "helped bring the nation together in ways which otherwise would not have occurred."[60]
Bork opposed the 1965 Supreme Court ruling inGriswold v. Connecticut, which struck down aConnecticutComstock Act of 1873 that prohibited the use ofcontraceptives for married couples.[61] Bork said the decision was "utterly specious", "unprincipled" and "intellectually empty".[61] Bork argued that the Constitution only protected speech that was "explicitly political", and that there were no free speech protections for "scientific, literary or that variety of expression we call obscene or pornographic."[62]
Bork was known for his disregard for theNinth Amendment. When asked about his views on unenumerated constitutional rights during his confirmation hearings by Arizona SenatorDennis DeConcini, Bork famously compared the Ninth Amendment to an uninterpretable inkblot, too vague for judges to meaningfully enforce.[63][64][65]
In 1998, he reviewedHigh Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, conservative punditAnn Coulter's book onimpeaching Clinton, pointing out that "'High crimes and misdemeanors' are not limited to actions that are crimes under federal law."[66]
In 1999, Bork wrote an essay aboutThomas More and attackedjury nullification as a "pernicious practice".[67] Bork once quoted More in summarizing his judicial philosophy.[68] In 2003, he publishedCoercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges, anAmerican Enterprise Institute book that includes Bork's philosophical objections to the phenomenon of incorporating international ethical and legal guidelines into the fabric of domestic law. In particular, he focused on problems he viewed as inherent in the federal judiciaries of Israel, Canada, and the United States—countries where he believes courts have exceeded their discretionary powers, discardedprecedent andcommon law and instead substituted their own liberal judgment.
Bork advocated modifying theConstitution to allow Congressionalsupermajorities to override Supreme Court decisions, similar to theCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'notwithstanding clause. Though Bork had many liberal critics, some of his arguments have earned criticism from conservatives as well. Although an opponent ofgun control,[69] Bork denounced what he called the "NRA view" of theSecond Amendment, something he described as the "belief that the constitution guarantees a right toTeflon-coated bullets." Instead, he argued that the Second Amendment merely guarantees a right to participate in a governmentmilitia, that its intent was to guarantee the right of militia membership, not an individual right to bear arms.[70][71] He is quoted as saying that the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment was intentional deception, not "law as integrity," and that states could technically pass a ban on assault weapons.[72][70]
Bork converted toCatholicism from Presbyterianism in 2003.[73]
In October 2005, Bork publicly criticized thenomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, saying her nomination was "a disaster on every level."[74][75]
On June 6, 2007, Bork filed suit in federal court in New York City against theYale Club over an incident that had occurred a year earlier. Bork alleged that, while trying to reach the dais to speak at an event, he fell, because of the Yale Club's failure to provide any steps or handrail between the floor and the dais. (After his fall, he successfully climbed to the dais and delivered his speech.)[76] According to the complaint, Bork's injuries required surgery, immobilized him for months, forced him to use a cane, and left him with a limp.[77] In May 2008, Bork and the Yale Club reached a confidential, out-of-court settlement.[78]
On June 7, 2007, Bork with several others authored anamicus brief on behalf ofScooter Libby arguing that there was a substantial constitutional question regarding the appointment of the prosecutor in the case, reviving the debate that had previously resulted in theMorrison v. Olson decision.[79]
On December 15, 2007, Bork endorsedMitt Romney for president in the2008 presidential election. He repeated this endorsement on August 2, 2011, during Romney's second campaign for the White House.
A 2008 issue of theHarvard Journal of Law and Public Policy collected essays in tribute to Bork. Authors includedFrank H. Easterbrook,George Priest, andDouglas Ginsburg.
Bork was married to Claire Davidson from 1952 until her death from cancer in 1980. They had a daughter, Ellen, and two sons, Robert Bork Jr. and Charles Bork. In 1982, he married Mary Ellen Pohl,[80] aCatholicreligious sister turned activist.[81] Bork Jr. is a prominent conservative activist who is currently president of the Antitrust Education Project.[82]
Bork died of complications from heart disease at the Virginia Hospital Center inArlington County, Virginia, on December 19, 2012, at age 85.[83][44][84] Following his death, Scalia referred to Bork as "one of the most influential legal scholars of the past 50 years" and "a good man and a loyal citizen". He is interred atFairfax Memorial Park inFairfax, Virginia.
judge fights 'borking' needed to stop court-packing?
| Legal offices | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by | Solicitor General of the United States 1973–1977 | Succeeded by Daniel Mortimer Friedman Acting |
| Preceded by William Ruckelshaus Acting | United States Attorney General Acting 1973–1974 | Succeeded by |
| Preceded by | Judge of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 1982–1988 | Succeeded by |
