At 09:26 PM 1/16/2003 -0500, you wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 08:08:30PM -0500, John Garcia wrote:> Minor nitpick: Federal Judges are *nominated* by the President, but > are confirmed by the Senate. Quite a few nominees have been rejected > by that body. Any judge that makes it through such a process was originally chosen by the president, and one might suppose the president be unlikely to choose a judge that has shown strong oppostion to the executive branch. So, at a minimum, out of the distribution of all judges that COULD be appointed, the ones most likely to check the President will never make it through the selection process. True, if the Senate is controlled by the opposite party, the most egregious choices will be rejected, but the balance will still be leaning strongly towards those less likely to check the president. And if the Senate is controlled by the same party, well... And you may have noticed in the New York Times article I quoted, they referred to the judges as having been appointed by the President, so my language appears to be in common use. Do you disagree that there is a problem? Do you disagree that this Federal Appeals court has made a decision in violation of the Constitution? -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I kept wanting to ask about this article. I'm not signing up for NYT usage. But if we have a group name and password pass it along. Otherwise copy and paste.
But we have to realize that judges are elected early in their careers. Unless it's a 50-50 split in the voting district or he makes a ruling which is simply outrageous, most judges won't be defeated once elected. I'm sure there is some point where they decide if the want to stay local and or state judges, or become federal judges. And I think some lower level federal judges are appointed directly by the president, but there is a higher level where they have to get congress approval. Probably very wrong about that last statement.
I understand your point Erik clearly but it is more complicated. The president isn't going to read every ruling of all the judges he has to nominate. Even the nominating committee, if there is such a group, won't get to every ruling. (I'm starting to get too deep here without a rope) I'm trying to say that a judge can make a hundred rulings that are normal, and one that's bad for a political leaning. And the opposing party will jump on that one ruling and hold it up as a shining example of the judge's entire career. There may have been many other factors which 'forced' the judge's ruling, but how are we the general public supposed to understand that? I'd bet most congress persons will get swept up in the furor and miss the details.
I read Andrew C. description of the UK judge system and that seems horrible. IMO judges should be setting the law, refining it, but not making rulings that are counter to what the law stated or worse making a law where there is none. That's the point of the three branch government.
Kevin T.
I'll add more, I have to go to work damnit
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
