Replies

I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to the future of this country to at least achieve some balance in the federal judiciary, which is currently loaded with so many Klintonites that every single basic premise upon which this country was founded is at risk.

That's untrue.

"Consider these statistics, gathered by the Democratic staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee. There are 13 circuits: 11 regional plus the D.C. Circuit and the federal court that handles specialized cases. If all of Clinton's nominees had been approved, the circuits would have been evenly balanced in partisan terms by the time he left office. Six would have had majorities appointed by Democratic presidents, six by Republicans, and one would have been evenly split.

But if Bush succeeds in filling every open seat, some of them vacant because Clinton nominees were blocked, 11 of the 13 circuits will have Republican-appointed majorities. In eight of the 13, Republican nominees would have majorities of 2 to 1 or more."

President Bush can fill all those empty seats today, with recess appointments.

Not untrue. David Souter would count as for the Pubbies, but your unsourcelinked (new word in the spirit of our President) stat wouldn't recognize his true impact on the balance of ideology on the SCOTUS. The average Klintoon activist is soooo extreme, and far too many Bush I and Reagan nominees not principled enough, that the Bush II appointments are absolutely critical to the future of this country.

The 9th Circuit declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional last year. That is merely exemplar of the sort of "progress" this country faces on a routine basis if the Bush nominees are not approved.

But if Bush succeeds in filling every open seat, some of them vacant because Clinton nominees were blocked, 11 of the 13 circuits will have Republican-appointed majorities. In eight of the 13, Republican nominees would have majorities of 2 to 1 or more."

Um...should someone tell cogitator that we've had Republican presidents in office for 23 of the last 35 years? And therefore a Republican majority of judicial appointees would parallel the free electoral choices of the American people.

I'm kind of curious why someone would be disturbed that the makeup of the federal judiciary would reflect national electoral results.