I absolutely agree with the thought that courts should not matter as much as they do in this country. That is why I said that I agreed with the general orientation of Holmes' judicial philosophy. He was himself personally a rather fierce laissez social darwinist, a view he declined, mostly, to read into the law. However, given that courts do matter as much as they do, however little they should matter, the argument taht the courts don't matter is mistaken.
As to whether Clinton appointees to lower courts are likely to be liberal, I recall a study in a law journal that indicated that they were about as liberal as Nixon appointees, which is, by modern standards, fairly liberal. Speaking anecdotally, the Clinton appointed district court judge for whom I clerked here in Chicago was quite liberal in the full-blooded sense of the word, as was her "class" of judges appointed the same year. One of Clinton's appointments to the appellate court here was moderately centrist/conservative, far more so than the Bush I appointed judge for whom I clerked on that courts; his othe appointment was pretty liberal.
I have said what I have to say on question of whether "we" should support the Democrats and am not going to discuss the issue. It seem s pretty silly to me anyway, a matter of personal moral purity rather than political efficacy.
--- "Steven L. Robinson" <srobin21 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Courts matter, but the question is how much,
>
> 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
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com