"T. Early" wrote in message
...


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.



There might be a bigger difference between judges than it seems right now.
I don't know about many of the judges, and I only follow some of the cases
which make the headlines.

One of the biggest cases recently is the revisted abortion case in which
Anthony Kennedy reversed himself. I'm sure many of the anti-abortion
activists abandoned the Republicans for Buchanan on that one.

I wonder if there are that many strict constructionists/constitutionalists
to choose from Judicial activism has been the trend in legal circles for
over a generation. And political trends don't often change in a big way
without some sort of economic or political disaster.

Frank Dresser