Robert Bork, tort-reform advocate, files slip-and-fall lawsuit

June 8, 2007

It’s certainly not funny when someone falls and hurts themselves, but the politics of this is kind of amusing.

Robert Bork , the one-time U.S. Supreme Court nominee, has sued the Yale Club for negligence. He is seeking $1 million in damages for injuries he sustained from a fall at the club last year. […]

Bork was at the Yale Club last June to speak at an event sponsored by The New Criterion, a monthly review of the arts and intellectual life. According to the suit filed in federal court in Manhattan, the club failed to provide steps and a handrail to climb onto the dais. Mr. Bork fell backward as he was attempting to climb the dais, striking his leg on the stage and his head on a heat register, the suit says.

Bork, 80 years old, suffered a large hematoma, or swelling of blood, in his lower left leg as a result of the fall and the hematoma eventually burst, according to the lawsuit. The injury required surgery and months of physical therapy, according to the complaint. He claims to have suffered “excruciating pain” as a result of the injury and continues to walk with a limp, according to the complaint.

Of course, what makes this precious is that Bork is a long-time advocate of “tort reform,” which would limit the right of injured people to file exactly these kinds of suits.

It’s also a reminder that the key to social progress in the United States is to get conservatives to have more life experiences. They’re against gay rights, until someone close to them is gay. They’re against separation of church and state, until they feel like the minority faith. They’re against rights for the accused, until they’re charged with a crime. They’re against personal-injury lawsuits, until they get hurt in an accident. They’re against….

They’re against gun control until Reagan/Brady got shot, they create the Brady Gun Law…and then they forget again……….

  • After Bork gets his cash, he’ll lobby against ‘frivolous’ lawsuits again.

  • They’re against anything and everything, until reality gobsmacks them upside the head and they conclude that certain laws, etc are good FOR them. Bunch of feckless feckin’ hypocrits all…….

  • They’re against suing casualty insurance companies who don’t pay claims until they lose their homes in a big f’ing hurricane and the casualty insurance company refuses to pay their claims.

  • Is it wrong to laugh at the idea of the Supreme Borkster falling on his ass because he couldn’t ask where the stairs were? The guy almost became the worst supreme court jurist ever, so sorry… I can’t find much sympathy for him. And the hypocrisy of his lawsuit makes me laugh even louder as I imagine him getting Borked yet again, after trying to climb into the highest court and failing, he tries to climb onto a large wooden box that (it sounds like) an 80 yr old man had no business climbing onto.

  • Just as I’m against illiteracy until I make a stupid typo. THEY’RE I GO AGAIN.

  • What about the Republicans’ vaunted personal responsibility??

    Bork consented to the conditions of the dais by trying to get on it. If he thought the lack of handrail or steps was an issue, he should have raised it, or refused to attempt the climb. It wasn’t like the Yale club pushed him off.

  • They’re against stem cell research, until one of their family members may benefit from it (see e.g. Orrin Hatch)

  • I agree with biggerbox. If he didn’t think he could make it up to the dais, then why didn’t he ask for help? Oh, I guess if you are Republican then you can’t ask for help either???

  • Help! Bork has fallen and he can’t get up.

    (Sorry, couldn’t let that one pass.)

    It kinda fits with these guys patterns. The “It’s okay for me, but not you,” hypocrisy is so wonderful.

  • It’s certainly not funny when someone falls and hurts themselves,

    In this case, yes it is.

  • Bork’s dogma got run over by his karma. Only a rabid right winger wouldn’t die from a fatal attack of irony in this situation. The only thing funnier is if the ACLU takes Bork’s side on the case. This mockery will ensure Bork goes to his grave remembered only as a punchline.

  • I think the most fitting outcome of this ironic-to-the-point-of-silliness lawsuit, would be to have Bork go through this long, protracted, legal battle only to win and be awarded the mighty sum of only $1.00, by the jury. It’s the most fitting result the hypocritical fucknob could get for publicly advocating against this specific thing and then filing a self-same suit when he’s the one that fell and supposedly hurt his bony ass trying to mount a dais. (What a klutz!)

    Watch… Next he’ll get hooked on oxycontin, or some other similar pain killer, and sue the drug manufacturer for getting him strung. Truth really is stranger than fiction.

  • Although conservative Republicans aren’t big on critical thinking, analysis, and logic, if you forced them to really analyze and defend what is going on here, they probably would come up with something like this:

    1) Conservative Republicans are by definition good people. A good person would not assert a frivolous personal-injury claim. He just wouldn’t. That would be a bad act, and conservative Republicans don’t act badly. Therefore, any personal-injury claim asserted by a conservative Republican is by definition meritorious and justified, not frivolous.

    2) Liberals (and that label is appropriately applied to anyone who isn’t a conservative Republican) are by definition bad people. They either don’t see the wisdom and rightness of being a conservative Republican, or they see the wisdom and rightness of being a conservative Republican but for whatever reason (e.g., a selish desire to lead a hedonistic lifestyle) they stubbornly refuse to join the conservative-Republican tribe. One of the things bad people often do is try to manipulate the system to get something for nothing. That’s just the way they are. Therefore, a personal-injury claim that is being asserted by a bad person is probably frivolous. And that means any personal-injury claim asserted by a liberal is presumptively frivolous.

    3) Hypocrisy? What hypocrisy? What are you talking about?

    4) If a conservative Republican gets big money as a result of settling or trying a personal-injury case, that’s a good thing because that person deserved the money and will use it for good purposes. He’ll probably put some of it in his church’s collection plate, spend some of it on Bible-based textbooks for his homeschooled kids, and donate some of it to the GOP (God’s Own Party) and/or Bible-believing politicians and political candidates. This would be justice. This would be God’s will.

    5) If a liberal gets big money as a result of settling or trying a personal-injury case, that’s a very bad thing almost certain to lead to the further deterioration of society. He didn’t deserve the money, and he”ll probably spend some of it on cocaine, spend some of it on Internet porn, use some of it to pay for his kids to attend Godless public universities, donate some of it to the ACLU, and give the rest to the Democrat Party and/or secular progressive candidates. This would be a clear injustice. It would be a very unfair transfer of money from a righteous GOP-affiliated entity (i.e., an insurance company) to an agent of the devil. It would be a gross perversion of God’s will. And we’ve all got to do whatever we can to stop this sort of thing from happening.

  • Bork is a “long-time advocate of tort reform”?

    Prove it.

    The fact of the matter is that tort reform was never one of Bork’s pet issues.

    To the extent he wrote on the issue, he never suggested that a lawsuit such as this should not be allowed to proceed.

    But don’t let your hate get in the way of the facts.

  • Forgive me for seeming rude. Robert Bork is in no way “a long time advocate of tort reform.” The referenced link in the blurb:

    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/bork-troy.htm

    is a commentary on the effect of article I to the US constitution. It’s discussion about tort reform refers to some effects of the commerce clause concerning the power of the national governement to regulate interstate commerce.

  • “Robert Bork is in no way “a long time advocate of tort reform.”

    Um, actually he is. You can learn his history with a little investigation. This really is a clear case of hypocrisy.

    That said, as a long-time opponent of Bork’s judicial philosophy, I gotta say this board has some really lowbrow and mean spirited commentary.

    Not as bad as freerepublic or LGF, tho.

    • Comments are closed.