Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mo1; All

Very interesting data. My first thought is that the percentage of Clinton appointees looks unusually high, but I wonder how much of that is simply due to the retirement of judges who were appointed during prior administrations (Bush, Reagan) plus the fact that W Bush is still early in his second term. In other words, it might make sense that Clinton would have the most judicial appointees since Clinton's was the most recent two-term presidency. Five or six years from now Bush might have the highest number of appointees thanks to his having had the rest of his term to make appointments, plus the retirement of some of the Clinton appointees.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?


1,346 posted on 05/23/2005 3:00:17 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: All

Frist looks to be confabbing .. and getting primed .. GO BILL ... HANG TOUGH!!


1,353 posted on 05/23/2005 3:02:25 PM PDT by STARWISE (Is your voice being heard in Washington? You get the govt. you deserve.U.S. CONGRESS: 1-877-762-8762)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1346 | View Replies ]

To: Yardstick

Yes, at very first I thought the number of Carter appointments was extremely low, but then I realized that many of those are probably gone by now. So all the numbers made more sense to me after that, seem reasonable with the facts.


1,359 posted on 05/23/2005 3:04:12 PM PDT by Fudd Fan (red, red voter in a blue, blue state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1346 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson