LinuxPlanet Interviews Robert Bork

Greg writes: "Robert Bork, former Supreme Court appointee from the Reagan era and a recent entrant in the MS antitrust case, did an interview over at LinuxPlanet. The topic? The Evil Empire's court settlement." Bork isn't actually new to the Microsoft case or to the subject of monopolies -- his legal experience makes this an interesting read, even for those who don't consider Microsoft an "evil empire."

Comments

Hi, I'm also a lawyer

[SumDeusExMachina]

I'm a lawyer also, and you, sir, have no idea what you're talking about. I've served on a state Supreme Court (I will not mention which one right now) for several years now and I can tell you, in no uncertain terms, that Robert Bork is just barely involved in the area of anti-trust law.

Bork's right-of-conservative political views have severely clouded his judgement in the past on such issues, and, as a Republican, has made many pro-business decisions. Take the case Jones vs. State of Arkansas. Clearly, there was substancial precedent and constitutional law behind that case that should have made the decision rather clear-cut, and yet, as a Justice, he ruled in favor, once again, of big business. He simply can't be viewed as a non-biased legal mind.

While it is all well and good for one's online publication to sport an interview with a big name such as Bork (hey, who doesn't remember the fight to prevent him from his eventual appointment?), it is ultimately meaningless. Perhaps when they can wrangle an interview with someone such as Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I will be impressed. Until then, I will continue to marvel at the ability of the Slashdot community to swallow absolutely anything that comes out of the mouth of anyone who even claims expertise in a field. Hook, line and sinker.

Re:Important for three reasons.

[Zeinfeld]

He is widely respected for his integrity.

He was paid to shill for Netscape in the Microsoft case.

While there is nothing wrong with a lawyer putting his clients case, it is important to separate the clients case from whatever expertise or reputation the lawyer might have when he is not a paid shill.

As for Bork's legal 'expertise', it is somewhat noticeable that respect for it tends to be confined to the extreeme right.

Still, he would have made a better member of the Supreme court than Clarence Thomas.

Re:Important for three reasons.

[sheldon]

"Though many know of Bork only because of the partisan fiasco that accompanied his nomination for the Supreme Court"

Reagan should not have nominated a Watergate flunky.

"Bork is widely acknowledged in legal circles as one of our country's greatest legal minds. "

Well yeah, according to Rush Limbaugh anyway.

"He is widely respected for his integrity. "

Except for being a Watergate flunky.

Then of course there is the fact that he was paid by Netscape, Oracle, Sun, etc. to say these anti-Microsoft things.

Re:See also the second amendment...

[Malcontent]

"the taking away of guns or limiting their ownership being contradictory to the existence of the militia"

The constitution cleary states the following.

1) Guns are neccasary in order to form militias.
2) Militias ought to be "well Regulated".

If your argument is that everybody ought to have guns thereby becoming a militia then you have to subject yourself to being "well regulated". I don't think you can have this both ways.