Bork: a Lesson for Reagan

The protracted Bork battle finally is over, and now Ronald Reagan’s conservative flame-keepers want the President to gain vengeance by seeking another confrontation with the Senate over his next Supreme Court nomination. But prudence should save the President from throwing himself on his sword and losing any political advantage that Republicans may feel they gained in fighting for the selection of Robert H. Bork to the bitter, ordained end.

The more rational and traditional view is that of White House Chief of Staff Howard H. Baker Jr., who suggested that an appointment will be made only after appropriate consultation with congressional leaders. Baker, for one thing, can read Senate votes. The Bork nomination lost by the greatest margin of any Supreme Court nomination ever defeated on the Senate floor.

Consult with the Democrats? Hell, no, never! declared Sen. Gordon J. Humphrey (R-N.H.). But this is how Presidents traditionally avoid certain defeat on potential nominees who are out of the mainstream. Democratic leaders had told the Administration beforehand that a Bork nomination would create a firestorm. Bork lost not because of the public campaign against him but because of his decidedly unorthodox views of the Constitution in relation to critical matters like privacy and civil rights.

There are a number of outstanding conservative jurists and others whom Reagan can nominate and who can win easy Senate confirmation even before Congress adjourns next month. Sen. Jake Garn (R-Utah) said that the President should name whomever he pleases. That certainly is his right, but he must deal with the senators in one way or another. The Constitution clearly directs that the President share the court appointment power with the Senate. The Bork nomination illustrated how important such checks and balances can be.