Posted on 02/07/2006 9:14:03 PM PST by LdSentinal
Judges appointed by President George W. Bush are the most conservative on record when it comes to civil rights and liberties, according to a new study by a political science professor at the University of Houston.
Bush judicial appointees are significantly more conservative than even the very conservative voting record of jurists appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr. in the realm of civil rights and liberties, said Robert Carp, professor of political science at UH. When it comes to these decisions, the Bush team is a full 5 percentage points more conservative than even the trial judges appointed by Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr.
"Liberal" judges would generally seek in their rulings to extend the freedoms of abortion, gay rights, the rights of women and minorities and freedom of speech, Carp explained. "Conservative" jurists, by contrast, would prefer to limit such rights.
In a previous study that was released in August 2004, Carp and his team of researchers predicted that if Bush was re-elected that year, the federal judiciary could take on an even sharper conservative slant. At the time, Bush's judicial appointees delivered liberal decisions 27.9 percent of the time in cases involving civil liberties and rights. For this latest study, researchers analyzed more data, and the figure has dropped to 27.2 percent.
"Our findings are significant because the general consensus is that President Reagan is the most modern conservative president on record, and yet the judges appointed by George W. Bush are even more conservative than the Reagan judges," said Carp, the study's lead investigator.
The new study, "The Voting Behavior of George W. Bush's Judges: How Sharp a Turn to the Right?," also found that only 33 percent of decisions handed down by Bush jurists were liberal. Presidents Johnson, Carter, and Clinton, scored 52, 51, and 44 percent, respectively. His GOP predecessors, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr., ranked 38, 43, 36, and 37 percent, respectively. The overall scores of the Bush judges are not "off the charts" in their level of conservatism, but they are sharply right of center.
"As the Supreme Court becomes somewhat more conservative with the appointment of Justice Alito and as more Bush judges are appointed to the policy-making appellate courts, the overall tone of the judiciary should be more conservative three years from now than it is today," he speculated.
Carp's research also found that the minorities and women whom Bush has appointed to the bench are somewhat more liberal in their voting patterns than the white males he has appointed to the bench.
In the earlier study, the voting record of the Bush judges in the area of Labor and Economic regulation was fairly moderate. The latest study that relies on a larger data set indicates that the Bush judges are very conservative in this issue area as well and could not be called "moderate" in their voting behavior.
The data on trial court decisions were taken from a database consisting of more than 75,0000 opinions published in the Federal Supplement by almost 1,800 judges from 1933 through the fall of 2005. Included in this overall data set were 795 decisions handed down by judges appointed by President George W. Bush.
The research findings appear in a chapter of the book "Principles and Practice of American Politics: Classic and Contemporary Readings, Third Edition" (forthcoming, July 2006) published by CQ Press. Analysis was conducted by Carp and political scientists Kenneth L. Manning, University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, and Ronald Stidham, Appalachian State University.
CQ Press, a division of Congressional Quarterly Inc., is a private, independent publishing firm based in Washington, D.C., that produces college and reference works on government and politics.
Odd; I thought "Liberal" judges would seek to expand the law by twisting the Constitution to conform to thier agenda, and "Conservative" judges would seek to contain the law within the strict limits of the Constitution.
An example would be "hate-speech crimes", where Liberals would limit freedom, by placing restrictions on the First Amendment; while Conservatives would expand (or maintain) freedom by insisting that "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech,..." means EXACTLY that.
What is it that they say about "garbage in, garbage out"? The entire premise of this bogus study is faulty. They may have a useful definition of "Liberal judges", but true "Conservative judges" would not be ruling based on desired outcomes, but rather would be ruling based on the facts and the law.
In other news, blogger journalists tend to be much more conservative than the Media Insdustry that is 90% liberal.
Can't believe they wasted time and energy on this study.
No, Austin is. But Houston tries hard.
The data on trial court decisions were taken from a database consisting of more than 75,0000 opinions published in the Federal Supplement by almost 1,800 judges from 1933 through the fall of 2005.
I guess the comparers didn't bother with the justices from the first 150 years of our country.
Funny how often these studies find what they're looking for!
Apparently if you want to see their "empirical data", methodology, models etc. you have to get their book. Not only pay for it but pay for it at college bookstore prices.
No thanks.
The age of progression in regards to legal zeniths attained is 1963-64 for racial civil rights, 1973 for Abortion, 1979(?) for Title IX and 1991(?) for Americans With Disabilities Act. At each of these points a major precedent was set. After each act constant refinements are the order of the day mostly from the left and to a lesser degree from the right. Again I would like to see this guy's data, models to make my own judgement but it is clear to me that he views the left's attempt to "supersize" each act as if every legal petition from leftist petitioners is a bonafide, unassailable action. This is one of the main reasons more recent judgements by Bush-43-appointed judges are viewed by the left as more conservative. It's a constant beat-back.
Also notice how the progression by Dem President-appointed judges are viewed by this guy as having become more liberal in their judicial decisions. Again this is a natural reality that has clearly been on view recently in regards to the war on terror, abortion, gay/transsexual rights, Pledge of Allegiance yada yada yada.
WHAT??? More conservative than Souter? How could that possibly be?
or it may have been personal, at that point it is hard for almost all of us to actually know what we do (any FR posters who are from death are VERY welcome to give perspective on this! How one thinks when the facts are at hand is a big deal to almost anyone's imagination.)
This, after all, part of the reasons Americans elected W.
In short, Pres. bush did pretty much what candidate Bush promised to do.
Good!
I like it, I love it, I want more of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.