RIP Judge Robert Bork

I wonder if Republicans have ever done anything to a judge compared to what Democrats did to Robert Bork, to earn them the verb "to bork." I guess you can throw in Clarence Thomas as well. Another of the Democrats' finest hours. Remember that the next time you complain about "partisanship" and think you are voting for The Nice Party.

Here's CNN's account:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/19/politics/robert-bork-dead/index.html

Robert Bork

"He was a solicitor general during the Nixon administration and first gained notoriety for carrying out the president's order to fire the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal in 1973, an episode known as the Saturday Night Massacre."

But, of course, his willingness to follow orders to keep his job would have had nothing to do with why many people did not want him on the Court.

3> If a higher standard of ethical behaviour is not expected of Judges why does the senate review appointments?

3: Except that two other men had already made the choice to resign rather than carry out Nixon's illegal order. In other words, no, not everyone would have "done it to keep your job too".

Bork was an unprincipled sleazebag. And now we know where you stand on the question of whether to take a principled stand or take the cowardly bootlicking option.

I wonder if Republicans have ever done anything to a judge like what Democrats did to Robert Bork, to earn them the verb "to bork."

You mean "tell the truth about decisions he made while on the bench"?

#5,

Except that two other men had already made the choice to resign rather than carry out Nixon's illegal order. In other words, no, not everyone would have "done it to keep your job too".

There is an alternate explanation for Bork's actions regarding the Saturday Night Massacre. He might not have deemed Nixon's order to be illegal.

The Special Prosecutor legislation under which Cox was appointed has always been highly controversial among constitutional scholars. There are some who feel that Congress does not have the constitutional power to create such independent prosecutors. I don't know where Bork came down on that issue, but it is certainly possible that he viewed Congress's installation of Cox in that position as itself illegal, and, therefore, would have deemed Nixon's firing of Cox to be well within his powers as President.

He might not have deemed Nixon's order to be illegal.

Given that two senior attorneys at the Justice Department deemed it to be illegal enough to resign rather than carry out the order, it seems like there was a pretty good indication it was. And given that this act was, in fact, found to be illegal by a federal court, they seem to have been quite firmly grounded in their belief.

There are some who feel that Congress does not have the constitutional power to create such independent prosecutors.

The federal courts disagree. The "feelings" of some others are irrelevant. Bork took an act that he had good reason to believe was illegal when he did it, and which was found to actually be illegal when tested.

"Principled" Bork was not.

''I was thinking of resigning not out of moral considerations. I did not want to be perceived as a man who did the President's bidding to save my job.''

Robert Bork.

Nevertheless, he did carry out the order, and was perceived as a man who followed orders solely to preserve his job. The above quote was several months after the event; initially, his statement was he merely carried out the President's instructions. It seems that like many of us, Bork made a decision that he later regretted, and tried to justify, both to others and himself.

#7: Perhaps you legal scholars, those of you who have passed bar exams, can find the answer in one of Bork's law exam questions (per David Frum). Give it a whirl:

"A Congress dissatisfied with the president's management of military affairs has decided to vest control of the armies of the United States in an Independent Colonel. Is this constitutional? Explain your answer."

link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/20/robert-bork-rip.html

10: Well, other than the fact that the question is not at all similar to appointing a special prosecutor, I think the question is founded on a false premise.

No one disputes that Congress has organic oversight powers, and may conduct investigations of the executive branch, and appoint staff members to conduct those investigations. Congress also has subpoena authority, which it can delegate to subordinate staff members working on its behalf. Given that, does anyone think that they could not appoint an "investigator" who was part of the legislative branch to act on their behalf.

Now, why could they not do so but place that officer under the auspices of the executive branch via appropriate legislation? The special prosecutor act was a law passed bicamerally and signed by the President. It merely creates a special, limited office that has restrictions on when and how such an individual may be fired.

Jeffery Rosen: on the price of Borking

Bork’s record was distorted beyond recognition, and his name was transformed from a noun into a verb. The Borking of Bork was the beginning of the polarization of the confirmation process that has turned our courts into partisan war zones, resulting in more ideologically divided opinions and less intellectually adventurous nominees on the left and the right. It led to the rise of right-wing and left-wing judicial interest groups, established for the sole purpose of enforcing ideological purity and discouraging nominees who have shown any hint of intellectual creativity or risk-taking.

link: http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/111284/were-still-paying-the-price-the-borking-bor...

#11: thanks for your answer. I can only guess that Bork ultimately regretted not resigning and firing Cox - but I do accept his own explanation that it was intended to avert a constitutional crisis. Instead, it was one act in a chain of events that would eventually politicize the nomination process to the point of constitutional crisis. Perhaps, it is best that we cannot see our future.

Bork's flaw was not in firing Cox; it was, to the end of his life, attempting to justify that decision.

Had Bork, several years later, admitted that he'd made a mistake in his decision in agreeing to fire Cox, I think he might have sat on the SCOTUS. Everyone makes mistakes, errors in judgement, etc., and so not being 'perfect' would not have been a bar.

Contrariwise, if Bork had simply stated "I was right, my superiors were wrong, this is why, and if that decision limited my career, so be it." Well, he might have still been denied the appointment; but he would have gotten credit for being steadfast. Instead, whatever his reasoning, Bork came across as someone who would do whatever was right for Bork; not the law, and not the country.

Had Bork, several years later, admitted that he'd made a mistake in his decision in agreeing to fire Cox, I think he might have sat on the SCOTUS.

I think that is somewhat dubious. By 1987 Bork had built up a track record of judicial opinions that were pretty ably used against him in the weeks running up to the confirmation hearings.

I don't see how anyone can defend this:

Ted Kennedy (from the article above):

“Robert Bork’s America,” he said, “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, and schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of Americans.”

I can only guess that Bork ultimately regretted not resigning and firing Cox - but I do accept his own explanation that it was intended to avert a constitutional crisis.

The only problem with this stance is that the "Constitutional crisis" that Bork wanted to avert was the President being held accountable for illegal acts taken while in office.

15: Because you haven't read Bork's judicial opinions and legal writing.

15> What's to defend. Each of those points represents the logical consequence of a Supreme Court case that Bork has stated that he opposed.

Re: #15:
Yeah, I'm not getting the objection either: how is Kennedy's description NOT an accurate description of Bork's stated opinions?

Bork was a movement conservative: he spent his life fighting for the exact positions Kennedy accused him of. Can you deny the truth of Kennedy's list?

deniro - if you don't like Bork's vision of America, why do you call yourself a conservative?

OK, catching up with the thread here...

1>I wonder if Republicans have ever done anything to a judge compared to what Democrats did to Robert Bork...?

Casting the net far afield here, to about all of oh, about a week ago - how about the character assassination of Susan Rice? (OK, a possible Senate appointment, not a judgeship, but, still....)

15>I don't see how anyone can defend this

(Thanks for bringing up Kennedy's assessment, it bears repeating.)

"Defend" what, exactly? Telling the truth about the man? Are those NOT his positions?

For nearly half a century, Bork was on the wrong side of every judicial question of our age: he was against civil rights, he was in favor of poll taxes, he saw no need for Americans to have a right to privacy, he was against reproductive freedom; he was terrible on all sorts of issues that matter.

Kennedy's appraisal is, if anything, too kind.

The fact that the man was also a self-serving weasel - or, in deniro's own stirring defense of the man, "You would have done it to keep your job too." - was just icing on the cake.

You know, locally, here in the northeast we remember Benedict Arnold for his personal heroism: at Ticonderoga, again on Lake Champlain, again at Quebec, again in the defeat of Burgoyne at Saratoga. It took full-on treason to turn "Benefdict Arnold" into a watchword for the reprehensible.

Other than an eagerness to suck up to power - which, granted, those in power often amply reward -
Robert Bork never exhibited ANY positive character to counterbalance his personal Profile in Cowardice.

On the right the verb "to Bork" means "character assassination"; but "borked" has entered the general language as meaning "irredeemable broken".

"Bork" is now a watchword for smug self-satisfaction; he was defeated simply by having people like Sen. Kennedy tell the truth about the man.

Edited to add: my quote of "deniro's stirring defense of the man" (above) is from post #3.
I note that deniro has now deleted his defense of Bork.

And a note on deniro's stirring defense of Solicitor General Bork ("You would have done it to keep your job too. At least, if you had a wife and family you would have.")

{Which deniro has since deleted... apparently even deniro (upon reflection) finds Bork's bootlicking to be indefensible.}

Umm, no.

Not everyone is a craven bootlicker.

First off, I've twice {edited to update: make that THREE times} met Elliot Richardson. He might have been the last honorable Republican; HE knew there were questions over which it was worth resigning in protest. If you make excuses for the Borks of the world, you dishonor the Elliot Richardsons of the world. (Oh, that's right: that's just what conservatives did.)

I've been a civil servant for three decades; I've known several senior civil servants who have resigned in protest over relatively minor points of public policy. Hell, I've put that card on the table twice myself (once as a married man, once as a "family man" with small children), though it's never been called.

Not everyone is a Robert Bork.

I wonder if Republicans have ever done anything to a judge compared to what Democrats did to Robert Bork, to earn them the verb "to bork.

Look up the name "Lani Guinier".

21: Having been a civil servant for eleven years, I have seen the exact same thing.

Looking around the interwebs, we see that The New Yorker's Jeff Toobin has a few words to say on the late Judge Bork:

Robert Bork, who died Wednesday, was an unrepentant reactionary who was on the wrong side of every major legal controversy of the twentieth century. The fifty-eight senators who voted against Bork for confirmation to the Supreme Court in 1987 honored themselves, and the Constitution. In the subsequent quarter-century, Bork devoted himself to proving that his critics were right about him all along.

Bork was born in 1927 and came of age during the civil-rights movement, which he opposed. He was, in the nineteen-sixties, a libertarian of sorts; this worldview led him to conclude that poll taxes were constitutional and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not. (Specifically, he said that law was based on a “principle of unsurpassed ugliness.”) As a professor at Yale Law School, his specialty was antitrust law, which he also (by and large) opposed.

Richard Nixon appointed Bork the Solicitor General of the United States, and in that post Bork showed that he lacked moral courage as well as legal judgment. In 1973, Nixon directed Elliot Richardson, the Attorney General, to fire Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor. Richardson refused and resigned in protest, as did his deputy William Ruckelshaus. Bork, the third-ranking official in the Justice Department, had no such scruples and thus served as executioner in the Saturday Night Massacre, to his enduring shame....

Question to all: My understanding of his defense was that it had to stop somewhere. I'm not at all convinced it had to be Bork, but the principle still holds. Presumably every lawyer in the Justice department stood in some relation to becoming the acting head of the Justice department. At some point, Nixon ought to get his way, and the nation ought to have someone reporting for duty at Justice. No?

#26: That was the thinking of both Richardson and Ruckelshaus, yes.

#26

The problem with that defense is that a lot of people who work at the Justice Department are civil servants, who couldn't be fired by the President (at least, not quickly). So, Nixon only could fire appointed administrators; not the people who did the bulk of the day-to-day work. If Nixon had fired every single administrator he could...the Justice Department would have still continued to function.

The quote deniro brought up in msg 15 was also raised by Limbaugh in his radio show. His point was not that Kennedy was wrong, but that it was really, really hurtful and no Republican would ever speak so meanly about anybody on the opposing side. As a radio host, however, he could move onto the main reason not to elect Hilary Clinton if she runs in 2016 -- because who wants to see a sexually unattractive woman aging in office.

Rush Limbaugh managed to set a personal record with me; he managed to offend me within 30 seconds. Primarily because of comments such as that. (Who wants to see an ugly man on a tv talk show?)

I doubt Rush will be defending his views on Letterman any time soon, though. (snort)

Politicians never say hurtful things? Politicians usually tell hurtful lies about their opponents, at least Kennedy was completely truthful in that quote.

26: If it was an illegal act to fire Cox, then why should Nixon get his way?* Does the President get to break the law just because he wants to?

*It turned out that it actually was an illegal act to fire Cox, as determined by a federal court after the Saturday Night Massacre. One might say that Bork didn't know that, but given that Richardson and Ruckelshaus had both resigned rather than carry out the order, that should have been a good indication of where the precedents pointed.

His point was not that Kennedy was wrong, but that it was really, really hurtful and no Republican would ever speak so meanly about anybody on the opposing side.

I find it amusing that Limbaugh thinks that telling the truth about a Republican's chosen legal positions is "speaking meanly" about him.

Can we move past the firing. It doesn't seem the most important thing about Bork, is it?

Well, it showed something of his character and his fitness for the Supreme Court. There are lots of qualified jurists whose most famous act was not bootlicking.

(Elliot Richardson, for one - - who emerged from the Saturday Night Massacre as a genuine hero, and not as a coward. There were other people available for that appointment.)

Shall we talk about his horrible politics instead?

The Supreme Court has seen a number of absolute scoundrels, political operatives and half-rate minds. Bork would hardly have been a unique monster. I'd think the important question would be Bork's influence on Constitutional jurisprudence.

OK, then - in 1987, he had no objection to poll taxes.

Isn't that alone enough to disqualify him?

And again: there were plenty of non-weasel candidates available. Reagen chose to reward a bootlicker with one of the best jobs available - - which speaks volumes about priorities.

These are illogical jumps:

1) Bork is appointed to the Supreme Court

therefore 2) Roe v. Wade is overturned

therefore 3) "women would be forced into back-alley abortions"

But that's not what Kennedy said. He said " In Robert Bork’s America", which doesn't require steps one and two above. It doesn't require that Bork being appointed to the SC automatically result in the overturning of Roe v Wade to not want someone who desires that on the SC.

39 -- Makes no sense.

39 makes perfect sense. Bork favoured court decisions, that would have enabled the colour bar and prevented access to contraception. Court decisions that would have resulted in an America in which poll taxes were legal, and free speech curtailed.
This was Robert Bork’s America the one he envisaged.

Bork's lack of success in creating this America does not mean he did not envisage it.

38> "women would be forced into back-alley abortions".
Is it the word forced that you object to. do you think perhaps that women indulge in backstreet abortions. Do you think abortions are never driven by necessity?

40: Here's what makes no sense: your apparent suggestion that a judge's pattern of rulings and a legal scholar's announced positions on legal topics have no bearing on how he would behave on the court. Bork advocated in favor of, and in some cases in which he was a sitting judge, ruled in favor of, a legal system that would easily lead to the consequences that Kennedy outlined.

The only "lack of logic" in this discussion is that you think that somehow Bork would have turned into a radically different person once wearing Supreme Court robes.

So, here are a couple of questions:

If Bork's declared positions and his history of judicial rulings had no bearing at all on his likely positions as Associate Justice - then why was his name put in nomination?

The GOP has been campaigning on overturning Roe for two generations now: why do you think that they are not serious about it?

Why do you think that Bork would NOT vote to reverse the decision?

"Makes no sense", indeed.

Apparently deniro is saying that when dealing with conservatives, we should assume that they are always lying when they explain the goals they want to set for the country.

1) Even if Bork had been on the Court, you don't know that a relevant abortion case would have ever come before the Court giving an opportunity for the judges to overturn Roe v. Wade. Whatever conservatives hoped and liberals feared about their resulting decision, you don't know how Bork, or anyone else, would have voted on that particular case. You think. You guess. You assume. You predict. But you don't know. See the Roberts vote on Obamacare. That one surprised you, didn't it?

2) It is illogical to go from overturning Roe v. Wade to "women would be forced into back-alley abortions"

No one wants that. Give him some credit for not being a monster. You again fail to give the other side any credit not only for holding a tenable position but for even possessing a small degree of humanity. In your eyes, the opposition is always a monster, not a man with a differing opinion.

You say: But that ("back alley)" would be the consequence (of ending Roe. v. Wade). No, you don't know that. I don't think anyone even knows what a "back alley abortion" is. If they ever happened, they certainly didn't happen in large number, and there is no logical reason to think they will ever happen again. You are letting your fear make judgments for you. You see monsters a lot, don't you?

Too many books, Bob. Get some fresh air.

And now for some music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naos7it_bl0

1) Even if Bork had been on the Court, you don't know that a relevant abortion case would have ever come before the Court giving an opportunity for the judges to overturn Roe v. Wade. Whatever conservatives hoped and liberals feared about their resulting decision, you don't know how Bork, or anyone else, would have voted on that particular case. You think. You guess. You assume. You predict. But you don't know.

But that's not what Kennedy was saying. Kennedy was saying that a Supreme Court that ruled in the way that Bork wanted a Supreme Court to rule would rule against Roe v. Wade, and not only against Roe v. Wade, but laos against Griswold v. Connecticut and every other privacy case that appeared before the court. Whether an actual case would have appeared in front of is beside the point that Kennedy was making. He was saying in the America that Bork was in favor of, the right to privacy doesn't exist, and as a consequence, all of the things that right protects could be restricted.

Of course, your post is entirely disingenuous because we do know what kinds of cases actually did come before the court during what likely would have been Bork's tenure had he been confirmed to the Supreme Court, and many of them would have provided ample opportunity for Bork to have tried to overturn Roe v. Wade. Would he have been successful? Who knows. But when you are assessing a judicial nominee, is it somehow out of bounds to point out where that judicial nominee's legal philosophy would lead?

See the Roberts vote on Obamacare. That won surprised you, didn't it?

Not really. Because Roberts is, and during his entire tenure on the bench has always been, an advocate for broad federal power in many arenas. How do I know that? Because I spent some time actually reading his judicial opinions and his legal scholarship. Unlike you apparently.

2) It is illogical to go from overturning Roe v. Wade to "women would be forced into back-alley abortions"

No, it isn't. Because that was the situation in most of the country prior to Roe v. Wade. Kennedy was well-aware of this, having lived through exactly that historical period.

No one wants that. Give him some credit for not being a monster. You again fail to give the other side any credit not only for holding a tenable position but for even possessing a small degree of humanity. In your eyes, the opposition is always a monster, not a man with a differing opinion.

Bork's legal philosophy would have led to all kinds of monstrous things. Bork knew this. You can figure this out by reading his legal writings and his musings on the outcomes of his chosen ositions. He didn't care. He advocated for poll taxes, against the right to privacy, against the civil rights movement and the laws that came out of it, against antitrust law, and in favor of almost unrestricted executive power. He made all of these points quite clearly, and the only thing Kennedy did was tell the truth about this.

You are letting your fear make judgments for you. You see monsters a lot, don't you?

a) It's righteous anger, not fear; and
b) Yes, I see DO monsters a lot: whenever I see conservatives near the levers of power.

Too many books, Bob. Get some fresh air.

Oh, fuck you, you ill-educated coward. I've HAD my share of outdoor jobs.

Relax, Bob.

47: Bob isn't the one trying to mount a defense of a sniveling bootlicker.

In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year.

I think we can assume they knew what a back alley abortion was. and assume to that this was not something that you did lightly.

Of course the discovery of antibiotics reduced the numbers dying but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth in 1965. and inevitably not all abortion related deaths would have been reported.

This was changed by Roe vs Wade I see no reason that it would not revert if Roe vs Wade was set aside.

Shrug it may be that Bork was not a monster that he simple put his duty to interpret the constitution as he read it, above the saving of those women's lives, even though he did not apparently put it above his family and job.
Hmm guess he was a monster after all.

deniro, I recently watched a pre Roe v. Wade Special Report aired on CBS and narrated by Walter Cronkite. The situations and statistics presented in it were stark. I've tried to find it to post a link, but have been unable to find it. But it wasn't some theoretical very small number we didn't need to worry our heads over. And the women seeking abortions were doing so for less-than-frivolous reasons.

deniro at #47: Relax, Bob.

Fair enough.

I answered with some heat because that's the first time since grade school that somebody tried to mock me for reading too much: I was not expecting to see that attitude here on a book-cataloging site.

My apologies for letting it get to me.

~46

"Oh, fuck you, you ill-educated coward."

Bob being mannerly, kind and civilized again.

50 -- You made a mistake there. You watched a special report by Walter Cronkite from years ago. Not exactly fair and balanced. Cronkite was a devoted liberal and CBS was his mouthpiece.

If you're worried about it, for what it's worth, and despite the fact that I am pro-life, I am 99% sure Roe v. Wade will never be overturned and that abortion will remain legal forever, or at least until the country collapses. Note: Obama has considerably liberalized the abortion laws. You might want to check out pictures of what exactly is being aborted at the present time.

Abortion will remain legal because:

1) Americans hate to see their freedom limited. They want to do what they want to do. They hate to give up a freedom (e.g. have an abortion) that they had in the past.
2) Americans want it, and that's how law is decided today, based on whether the majority or some vocal and wealthy interest group wants it that way, regardless of whether it is legal or moral.
3) Practical considerations (e.g. too many crack babies already damaging the health-care system etc.) nearly always outweigh moral considerations.
4) The question of when life begins will never be solved by science, and science is today's god.

My advice to the Republican Party is: Move abortion off the platform. Welcome pro-life voters and pro-choice voters alike. For better or worse, the issue has been settled.

I find your #2 point to be interesting. I take it, then, that you would prefer that the Law be decided based on what a minority, non-vocal, poor, disinterested group would think?

When has the Law ever been made or changed based on the above criteria? Never. And if the Law (or its interpretation) is changed, consistent with the accepted procedures, then it is legal, whatever those who lost might wish to believe. (Morality is not, and has never been, a part of the common law or Constitutional Law, unless you consider following legal precedents and procedures as 'moral'.)

Science, contrary to religious believers, is not a religion. It is not a God, nor does it worship such entity(s). It is a methodology for discovering, analyzing, and categorizing how the Universe (or various portions of it) work. Your question 'when does Life begin?' is too vague to BE answered, by science or anyone else.

53 "Note: Obama has considerably liberalized the abortion laws."

What law has he changed?

Life, on Earth, began once some 3.5 to 4 billion years ago.

#56

Are we considering life to be unicelluar organisms, viruses, or amino acids? Again, this is a question of how we define the term 'life'. But depending on how you define life, it would determine as to when it first began on this planet.

This is why Pluto is no longer a planet; scientists developing precise categories and definitions. A vague 'when life began' isn't precise enough for a definite answer. (And given the length of time that has elapsed, it's very likely that any answer will have to be approximate.)

FWIW, your answer is probably close enough for non-scientists. I was simply pointing out that it's a vague answer to a vague question.

"Note: Obama has considerably liberalized the abortion laws"

Yes, I'd like to hear what laws he's changed too!

~57 & 58

There you guys go, wanting facts and specifics again. Can't you just engage in a conversation as if it were meaningless blabber between friends and gentlemen. Next you'll be citing books to each other, even recommending books and papers. How boring ! How utterly inappropriate in a context like LIBRARYthing. I hope you'll cut it out and return to the standard of polite chatter.

#26: How many people could Nixon have fired before he realized he was in deep trouble? How many people could Nixon have fired before Congress would have fast-tracked an impeachment? Madison v. Marbury seems to say that if Nixon is going down hard and fast, it doesn't matter who he says he's firing, President Ford doesn't have to care.

#44: Even if Bork had been on the Court, you don't know that a relevant abortion case would have ever come before the Court giving an opportunity for the judges to overturn Roe v. Wade. Whatever conservatives hoped and liberals feared about their resulting decision, you don't know how Bork, or anyone else, would have voted on that particular case. You think. You guess. You assume. You predict. But you don't know.

Then ... what? You could say that about anybody. It's true that people change--Eisenhower regretted putting Earl Warren on the bench--but I don't know what you're going to do besides judge people on their actions.

No one wants that. Give him some credit for not being a monster.

What does what people want have to do with anything? Reality is what it is, and prohibition of anything tends to create an underground market.

I don't think anyone even knows what a "back alley abortion" is. If they ever happened, they certainly didn't happen in large number,

SimonW11 points out that at one point in time it was a 9/11 worth of deaths every year. But hey, how quickly we forget.

Wait a second, you were the one lecturing me about how conservatives are the only people who listen to history. Abortion is one of the proofs that it simply ain't so, that history is a hard mistress that no one likes to obey.

Bork has been borked by Mother Nature.

No one really liked him anyway.

Let's move on.

http://www.encounterbooks.com/books/saving-justice/?tab=overview

Saving Justice: Watergate, the Saturday Night Massacre, and Other Adventures of a Solicitor General by Robert Bork.

Again, for #44, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html says

"Abortion is illegal in most of Africa, though. It is the second-leading cause of death among women admitted to hospitals in Ethiopia, its Health Ministry has said. It is the cause of 13 percent of maternal deaths at hospitals in Nigeria, recent studies have found."

> 63

If they can't even make their women behave in Africa then what chance do we have here in America.

We should make abortion legal here.

And easily accessible.

The life of every woman is as precious as any male person - is it not?

The difference in books tagged with the same tag in different languages is trivial and uninteresting and not one worth preserving, especially in view of the utility of combining the tags. You are basically arguing against combining tags across languages and that's a practice that Tim has encouraged.

>65 jjwilson61:
Wrong thread.

Damn.