[madprof98]

But in civil rights and civil liberties cases -- abortion, gay rights, freedom of speech, right to privacy, race relations, for example -- Bush judges made liberal decisions only 26.5 percent of the time.

About 26.5 percent too often.

[rhombus]

Carp along with Kenneth Manning of the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth and Ronald Stidham from Appalachian State University looked at federal court decisions in the Federal Supplement's database of 70,000 cases and categorized them as "liberal" or "conservative" based on case content.

Spare me their judgements on cases as liberal or conservative. Junk science.

[rdf]

This is my #2 reason to support GWB in 2004. And support him firmly.

#1 is national security.

Cheers,

Richard F.

[Clintonfatigued]

Every one of Bush's judicial nominees are experienced and intelligent candidates, fully deserving of confirmation. The 'Rat filibusters are inexcusable.

[bt_dooftlook]

Well an average president doesn't have to face an unconstitutional filibuster; my [uninformed] guess is that his appointments are far below Reagan's or Clinton's after 4 years...

[CzarNicky]

So what they are saying is that Bush's judges follow the constitution more than previous presidents.

[mrsmith]

Oh sure, we can believe this unbiased person.

(FR) Nando Media/Christian Science Mon. Feb. 20, 1999 9:30 a.m. EST By WARREN RICHEY

"Clinton judges are ideologically moderate and were generally not picked for their ideological qualifications," says Robert Carp, a political science professor at the University of Houston"

[RasterMaster]

Plain and simple: I DON'T WANT JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS ON THE BENCH! Especially LIBERAL stooges who do the bidding of the DNC.

[Valin]

The study's authors say the re-election of Bush would give U.S. courts a strong rightward tilt that could last for years.

And the problem with this is.....?