Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A neglected aspect of how Bush has screwed the US

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    A neglected aspect of how Bush has screwed the US

    Judicial appointments. Not a headline-grabbing issue, but Charlie Savage--brok the story of Bush's signing statements--looks at Bush's legacy in his judicial appointments in today's New York Times:

    After a group of doctors challenged a South Dakota law forcing them to inform women that abortions “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being” — using exactly that language — President Bush’s appointees to the federal appeals courts took control.

    A federal trial judge, stating that whether a fetus is human life is a matter of debate, had blocked the state from enforcing the 2005 law as a likely violation of doctors’ First Amendment rights. And an appeals court panel had upheld the injunction.

    But this past June, the full United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit voted 7 to 4 to overrule those decisions and allow the statute to take immediate effect. The majority argued that it is objectively true that human life begins at conception, and that the state can force doctors to say so.

    Mr. Bush had appointed six of the seven judges in the conservative majority. 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 Oct. 6, Mr. Bush pointed with pride to his record at a conference sponsored by the Cincinnati chapter of the Federalist Society, the elite network for the conservative legal movement. He noted 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 influence society for decades and that represents one of his most enduring accomplishments. While a two-term president typically leaves his stamp on the appeals courts — Bill Clinton appointed 65 judges, Mr. Bush 61 — Mr. Bush’s judges were among the youngest ever nominated and are poised to have an unusually strong impact.

    They have arrived at a time when the appeals courts, which decide tens of thousands of cases a year, are increasingly getting the last word. While the Supreme Court gets far more attention, in recent terms it has reviewed only about 75 cases a year — half what it considered a generation ago. And Mr. Bush’s appointees have found allies in like-minded judges named by Mr. Bush’s father and Reagan.

    Republican-appointed judges, most of them conservatives, 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 of the 13 circuits, while judges appointed by Democrats have a dwindling majority on just one circuit.

    #2
    A neglected aspect of how Bush has screwed the US

    I doubt that law can stand up at the Supreme Court, even this Supreme Court, can it? Certainly not under that ridiculous logic.

    Comment


      #3
      A neglected aspect of how Bush has screwed the US

      It probably can't.

      But give McCain/Palin the chance to appoint at least two more Justices and all bets are off.

      Comment


        #4
        A neglected aspect of how Bush has screwed the US

        "I doubt that law can stand up at the Supreme Court, even this Supreme Court, can it? Certainly not under that ridiculous logic."

        I wouldn't bet on it. Kennedy's "logic" in Carhart was pretty ridiculous.

        Comment


          #5
          A neglected aspect of how Bush has screwed the US

          There's a piece in today's WSJ by some Northwestern prof and Federalist Society member arguing basically the exact opposite. I don't find his argument at all persuasive and with such shoddy logic, I don't see how he every got a job teaching at Northwestern.

          Comment

          Working...
          X