| I fought the law|
and the law won
Robert H. Bork (1927 – 2012) was a conservative former judge and Solicitor General and career crook. He was an outspoken advocate of the originalist school of legal thought as well as a scholar of law and author of several best-selling books of political criticism. The tone of these books is generally negative and highly critical of what he perceived as a trend of left-wing radicalism in Western society.
One of his most famous books was Slouching Toward Gomorrah, which was a play on Slouching Toward Bethlehem, a line from the poem The Second Coming by W.B. Yeats. In it, he blamed all sorts of ills on the '60s and liberalism. Dan Savage then made a play on Bork's book with Skipping Toward Gomorrah, which caused Bork to threaten to sue. As soon as Savage pointed out Bork's own use of an earlier title, Bork backed down.
 1973 role in Saturday Night Massacre
In October 1973 President Richard Nixon, angered at Watergate Independent Counsel Archibald Cox's refusal to compromise on a settlement over subpoenaed White House tapes, ordered the firing of Cox whom Nixon considered a "Kennedy liberal." Attorney General Elliot Richardson, also of Massachusetts, refused and resigned under protest; Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus likewise refused and resigned. Solicitor General Robert Bork then carried out the President's request which has become known in popular culture as the "Saturday Night Massacre," although no one was killed.
Bork, for his day, was insanely right-wing. One of the books he authored at Yale was The Antitrust Paradox, which argued that corporate mergers were good for society and that some anti-trust measures hurt consumers. The book drew heavy criticism from actual economists, especially for the way Bork incorrectly uses the term "consumer welfare" throughout it, one of the most basic concepts for why anti-trust laws exist.
In 1984, Bork ruled against a Navy sailor who was discharged for homosexuality in the court case Dronenburg v. Zech. The sailor (Dronenburg) charged that this violated his right to privacy but Bork, alongside Antonin Scalia, ruled against him, then whined about Supreme Court cases where the Court found in favor of the right to privacy.
Perhaps his most vile moment was when he defended the poll tax during his confirmation hearing for Solicitor General, arguing that "It was a very small tax, it was not discriminatory, and I doubt that it had much impact on the welfare of the nation one way or the other." He continued to defend this view by his 1987 nomination.
On the other hand, he claimed to support desegregation. His position on gun control, where he criticized the NRA for being too pro-gun and his statement that the Second Amendment only guarantees the right to participate in a "government militia," might make him a RINO by today's standards. It is alternatively possible that this was merely a manifestation of his belief, explained in his books and opinions, in infinite judicial deference to legislation and the paucity of individual rights compared to whatever the state considered its interests to be.
 1987 nomination to the Supreme Court
Upon the retirement of Lewis F. Powell, a well-thought-of moderate from the Supreme Court in 1987, then-President Ronald Reagan actually sought to replace him with someone who could be a more... batty influence. He chose Bork. The reaction was swift and aggressive; Bork's political views and past were drawn to the attention of the public and widely denounced by the reality-based community. Among other things, Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy asserted that Bork would favor an anti-abortion stance, and would be a threat to the ruling of Roe v. Wade if allowed into the Supreme Court. A tide of opposition formed from various supporters of civil rights, and it became apparent that Bork was an unpopular nomination. He was defeated in the Senate vote and the position went to Anthony Kennedy.
 "Bork" as a term of slang
The word "bork" has entered popular vocabulary since Robert Bork's failed nomination. Its meaning is flexible depending on the speaker, but it is generally used to attack a person systematically, especially in the media.