"If Bork had gotten through, Scalia would be regarded as an intellectual lightweight and could never hog the spotlight like he did."

----------------

Okay, let's unpack this statement. It's a fascinating "what if" scenario with some interesting implications about legal history, judicial reputations, and how those reputations are shaped. Here's a breakdown of the argument, potential validity, counterarguments, and nuances:

**The Core Argument:** The statement posits that if Robert Bork had been confirmed to the Supreme Court instead of Anthony Kennedy (following Bork's rejection in 1987), Justice Antonin Scalia wouldn't have achieved the towering intellectual reputation he did. The reasoning is that Bork, a highly articulate and rigorous conservative legal scholar, would have occupied the "star" position for originalist/textualist interpretations of the Constitution, leaving Scalia in his shadow.

**Let's break down why this argument has some merit:**

* **Bork's Intellectual Reputation:** Robert Bork *was* a formidable intellectual. He was a renowned scholar with a deep understanding of legal history and precedent. His book, "The Structure of Liberty," is still widely read and debated. He articulated originalism (the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its original meaning) with great clarity and force.

* **Scalia's Rise & Branding:** Scalia was undeniably brilliant, but his rise to prominence benefited from a few factors:

* **Positioning as the "Young Turk":** When he arrived on the Court in 1986, Scalia was relatively young (compared to Bork) and presented himself as a vigorous defender of originalism. He had an energy and flair that made him more appealing to the media than Bork, who could be perceived as somewhat dry or academic.

* **Communication Style:** Scalia was known for his sharp wit, memorable dissents, and willingness to engage in public debates. He cultivated a persona – "the fiery conservative" – that attracted attention. Bork, by contrast, tended to be more reserved and focused on detailed legal arguments.

* **The Bork Rejection:** The intense political battle surrounding Bork's confirmation hearings (and his ultimate rejection) created a martyr-like image for him. This also inadvertently cleared the way for Scalia to become *the* face of conservative judicial thought. Had Bork been confirmed, that narrative wouldn’t have existed.

* **Media Attention:** Scalia actively courted media attention and was comfortable in public forums. Bork was less inclined toward this kind of engagement.

**Counterarguments & Nuances:**

* **Scalia's Own Brilliance Would Still Shine:** Even with Bork on the Court, it’s unlikely Scalia would have been *completely* eclipsed. He had genuine intellectual firepower and a unique perspective that would likely still find expression in his opinions and dissents.

* **Different Roles, Different Strengths:** It's possible Bork and Scalia could have complemented each other. Bork might have been the lead intellectual architect of originalist arguments, while Scalia provided the rhetorical punch and public engagement. This isn’t necessarily a zero-sum game.

* **The Court Changes Over Time:** The Supreme Court evolves. New issues arise, and justices' influence shifts with changing circumstances. Even if Scalia had been initially overshadowed, he might have found opportunities to distinguish himself later in his career.

* **Originalism Isn’t a Monolith:** While both were originalists, Bork and Scalia sometimes differed in their approaches. These differences could have led to interesting intellectual debates *within* the conservative wing of the Court, which might have attracted attention.

* **Bork's Later Influence:** Bork continued to be an influential voice on legal issues even after his rejection. His writings and commentary remained highly regarded.

**Conclusion:**

The statement has a strong element of plausibility. It’s quite likely that Bork's presence on the Court would have significantly altered Scalia's public image and how he is perceived by historians. Bork's intellectual rigor and articulation of originalism could easily have taken center stage, leaving Scalia in a supporting role. However, it's an oversimplification to suggest Scalia would be entirely forgotten or regarded as a lightweight. His brilliance was undeniable, and he would likely still have made significant contributions to legal thought, even if his fame had been more modest.

**Disclaimer:** This is a speculative analysis based on historical context and available information. It's impossible to know with certainty what would have happened under different circumstances.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5720504&forum_id=2:#48904172)