"Dan" wrote in message
...
In article
,
"Frank Dresser" wrote:

"Dan" wrote in message
...

It's all about "bragging rights". "We Won The Election!"
"We're In
The White House!" "We're More Popular!". Neener Neener!

It has nothing to do with "The Future Of America" or any of that
rhetoric. It's a horse race, a beauty pageant. Pure and
simple.


If only that were true. This is the era of Big Government. There
are
thousands and thousands of jobs to be handed out. There are
billions of
dollars worth of contracts to be awarded. People will be
prosecuted, or not
prosecuted, based on the outcome of the election.

All of that will happen no matter who is in the White House. If
the
job goes to Eany, Meany, Miney or Moe it makes little difference.

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.

"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.

Frank Dresser

"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.

"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