BEWARE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ASPECT of BUSH'S LEGACY
Widespread dissatisfaction with the Bush administration is likely to result in a whole sale shift from Republican/ conservatism to Democratic/liberalism shaping major policy decisions for the next eight years. If a Democrat this will be a time to celebrate. If a Republican this will be a time to mourn. But wait - the reality presents a much more complicated picture.
An article titled "APPEALS COURTS PUSHED TO RIGHT BY BUSH CHOICES" (The New York Times, 10/29/08, Charlie Savage) details the enormous power of one leg of the Bush legacy.
The article states: "Mr. Bush ... appointed six of the seven judges in the conservative majority [on the Federal appeals courts, one step below the Supreme Court.] His administration has transformed the nation's federal appeals courts, advancing a conservative legal revolution that began nearly three decades ago under President Ronald Reagan.... On October, 6, Mr. Bush pointed with pride... that he had appointed more than a third of the federal judiciary expected to be serving when he leaves office, a lifetime-tenured force that will influencesocieity for decades , and that represents one of his most enduring accomplishments."
So what?
The what is as follows. The federal appeals court "... which decide tens of thousands of cases a year, are increasinglygetting the last word. ... Republican= appointed judges , most of them conservative, are projected to make up about 62 percent of the bench next Inauguration Day, up from 50 percent when Mr. Bush took office. They control 10 to 13 circuits, while judges appointed by the Democrats have a dwindeling majority on just one circuit."
So what?
"The consequences of the evolving judiciary are only beginning to play out... Appeals courts tend to change the law incrementally rather than in rapid shifts. They are constrained to follow Supreme Court precedent, and most of their work consists of unanimously disposing of routine cases."
But...
"Still, every year courts encounter some controversial cases in which they have greater discretion. In such circumstances, several studies have shown that judges appointed by Republican presidents since Reagan have ruled for conservative outcomes more often than have their peers."
So what?
'They have more likely than their colleagues to favor corporations over regulators and people alleging discrimination, and to favor government over people who claim rights violations. They have also been more likely to throw out cases on technical grounds, like rejecting planitiffs' standing to sue."
Fair criticism?
Mr McIntosh [a co founder and vice-chairman of the Federalist Society] defended that record, saying the conservative judges are brining a neutral application of the law to a judiciary that liberals had politicized. But Nat Aron of the Allians for Justice, a liberal legal group, said Mr. Bush had "packed the courts" with "extremists" who share an agenda of hostility to regulations and the rights of women, minorities, and workers."
"Geoprge W.Bush has made great strides in cementing the ultraconservative hold on the federsal courts which began with Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, when he set to impose his agenda on the country through his court appointments," Ms. Aron said.
So what? A note to those still undecided voters -
"An Obama victory could roll back the Republican advantage on the appeals courts and even create a Democratic majority by 2013, according to a study of potential vacancies by Russell Wheeler of the Brookings Institution. But if Mr. McCain wins, Republicans could achieve commanding majorities on all 13 circuitsw."
There is a distinction made between ultaconservatives and more objective conservatives.
So you have it. The outcome of this election is a true watershed event in American History.
P.S. Those of us who consider ourselves liberal, centrists, or fair minded conservstives owe a debt of gratitude to Supreme Court Justices Ginzberg 75, Suter 69 and Stevens 88 for holding out until the election is over.
Comments