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]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
