NYT,pg1: Mixed Results for Bush in Battles Over Judges

[DeepModem Mom]

THE BUSH RECORD
Mixed Results for Bush in Battles Over Judges
By NEIL A. LEWIS

Published: October 22, 2004


WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 - Soon after President Bush took office, two events set in motion what has become an extraordinary battle between the White House and Senate Democrats over the appointment of federal judges.

First, the new president and his aides turned to the Federalist Society, a conservative lawyers' group, to help select candidates. Of Mr. Bush's first batch of nominees, 8 of 11 were proposed by the society. There could have been no clearer signal that Mr. Bush intended to follow the pattern set by his father and President Ronald Reagan of shifting the courts rightward and reaping the political benefit of pleasing social conservatives.

Then, at a weekend retreat in April 2001, Democratic senators adopted an aggressive new strategy in dealing with judicial candidates. Under Mr. Bush's Republican predecessors, the Democrats believed they could block only candidates with egregious faults. But that weekend, two prominent law professors and a women's rights lobbyist urged the senators to oppose even nominees with strong credentials and no embarrassing flaws, simply because the White House was trying to push the courts in a conservative direction.

Now, after more than three years of battles over judicial appointments, Mr. Bush's ambitions for the courts are clear, but his record is mixed. He has succeeded in placing staunch conservatives on the bench in many cases but has been foiled in others by Senate Democrats like Charles E. Schumer of New York who charge him with trying to "create the most ideological bench in history."

The conflict between the White House and the Democrats has been particularly sharp, in part because Democrats reasoned that Mr. Bush could not claim any mandate to remake the courts, given his contested victory over Al Gore. With the nation now preparing to elect a president who will almost certainly have an opportunity to name at least one Supreme Court justice, Democrats and Republicans remain deeply entrenched in their positions over who belongs on the bench....


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/22/politics/campaign/22judges.html

[Tony_Illinois]

1. Supreme Court Nightmare if GWB Wins

The possibility of Bush appointing up to 4 Supreme Court justices is chilling. They deny it, of course, but the administration goal is to pack the court with social conservatives and turn back the American cultural clock to 1950.

Most Americans, unfortunately, do not care or understand the impact that this would have on their lives. We are more concerned as a nation with the outcome of "American Idol" than the serious issues surrounding Supreme Court appointments and rulings.

The "American Constitution Society Blog" has an informative and alarming piece called "Clarence Thomas' America" that I recommend for a frightening look at what the future may be like. Here is a selection from that item:

<
Stare decisis is one of the most well established principles in the law. Simply put, it means that courts will not overturn established precedent without an extraordinary reason to do so. It is also a doctrine not held sacred by all nine Justices. In Justice Antonin Scalia's words, Justice Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period."

Because Justice Thomas does not feel bound by precedent, his opinions often call for substantial shifts in the law. These next two weeks, ACSBlog will explore several of these cases, explaining the history behind Thomas' disfavored doctrines, and suggesting how America would be different should Thomas' vision ever become law. We hope these pieces will be helpful in understanding the man President Bush calls a "model" Supreme Court Justice.
>

Full article found here -
http://www.acsblog.org/featured-events-359-clarence-thomas-america.html

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Great post, TI! Welcome to DU --