"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"T. Early" wrote in message
...


If you consider Roe v Wade, affirmative action, Miranda rights,
"God"
in the pledge of allegiance, and exceptions to search and seizure
requirements to make little difference.



Is there really much evidence there's much difference between judges
appointed by Republicans and Democrats? I know Rush is oftentimes
eagar to
tell us who appointed the judges (usually Carter or Clinton) who
write
decisions he disagrees with. But often Rush doesn't mention who
appointed
the judge. Howcum? I'm guessing these are mostly Reagan or Bush
appointees.

How might I tell the difference between court decisions between
Republican
judges and Democrat judges? By the girls in the military school
decision?
By the campaign reform decision?

Certainly the abortion decision is the highest profile of these old
issues.
The religious right has made a real difference in American
elections. The
majority of the Supreme Court is now Republican. And the abortion
decision
is now older than the majority of Americans, and may outlive us all.


I can't argue with you--you're too logical But the question was
whether who gets elected matters, and I still think that the area in
which it matters -most- is in the area of judicial appointments. It's
true that the majority of Supreme Court appointments were made by
Republican presidents, but the two lower federal courts also are very
important--and the party in control gets many appointments to those
courts for the life of the judges that aren't subject to the scrutiny
received by Supreme Court justices. I also think that, as both sides
of the political spectrum have becoming increasingly polarized (rabid)
in recent years, future appointments to all courts will reflect that
polarization. And yes, while many cases are probably decided without
regard to who appointed the judges, on any number of important issues
judges appointed by Democrats tend to be less literal in interpreting
laws than judges appointed by Republicans.