In the US we let Judges decide things that in other parts of the world are part of the political process - such as abortion, land use, prison administration, tobacco policy, etc etc. IMO this is fundamentally undemocratic, why should the proverbial "9 old men" (and women) have the final say on whether we can buy birth control products over the counter or whether Banks can charge us fees for accessing OUR money on ATMs? Aren't such things more properly the domain of the legislature and our elected representatives?
My point is that the power of judicial appointments does not transform a pro-corporate new dem such as the Clintons into someone worthy of the voters of progressives and working people. Such new dems are likely to promote judges with judicial philosophies that are - at the least- pro-corporate. Stephen Breyer is a prime example (his brother, Charles, on the Northern District of California is anothe example). I don't think it can be said that Clinton, or recent state governors such as Gray Davis, have tended to appoint liberals to judicial appointments. At best, they have appointed technocrats or pro business judges. It has been decades since we have had appointments of liberals in any significant number to the federal bench, under Carter. SR
----- Original Message ----- From: "andie nachgeborenen" <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 9:50 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Supreme Court tosses $ 79.5M tobacco award
>
> That may not be decisive. There may be other reasons,
> which I don't want to go into, why "we," or you,
> Steve, or me, should not ever vote Democrat. But the
> idea that the courts and who appoints judges to them
> doesn't matter is unsound.
>
>
lbo-talk