The Bush Legal Legacy: More Whites, Men, and Conservatives

When we talk about judicial appointments, we usually focus on the Supreme Court — and George W. Bush certainly left his mark there with the appointment of two young, very conservative justices who will shape the decisions of the court for the next few decades. But considering that getting a case up to the Supreme Court is about 10 times harder than getting into Harvard, it’s worth pointing out that other judicial appointments — especially to appeals courts — end up mattering as much or more than who is appointed to the highest bench. And George W’s have not been good.

As a result of Bush’s 311 appointments to federal district courts and the appellate bench, judges across the country are more male, more white and slightly more Hispanic than those in place at the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency. A third of the nominees during Bush’s first term had “a history of working as lawyers and lobbyists on behalf of the oil, gas and energy industries,” according to a study by the Center for Investigative Reporting.

A University of Houston study of rulings by Bush’s district court appointees through 2004 found that 27 percent of the judges supported what might be considered “liberal” outcomes in litigation related to the Bill of Rights or civil rights — “giving the President the lowest score of any modern chief executive,” according to the author, Robert A. Carp. Bush’s judges also were much less likely to express support for privacy rights.

District and appellate appointments usually fly below the radar, and so presidents with an agenda can easily stack those benches with ideologues who will make law for decades to come. Here’s some of what we can expect from these appointees in the future:

Bush’s appointees nationwide have generally been “less hospitable” to allowing groups without direct financial interests to intervene in court, said University of Pittsburgh law professor Arthur D. Hellman, an expert on federal appellate courts. That viewpoint skews litigation by giving “less attention to values that are not measured in dollars,” he said.

In June, a Republican-appointee majority of the 8th Circuit — with jurisdiction over seven Midwestern and Plains states — lifted an injunction against what is perhaps the most radical anti-abortion law in the country: a South Dakota law requiring that doctors read a five-point tract meant to discourage women from proceeding.

The tract states a view that no court had previously sanctioned, namely that “abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being” and that by having an abortion, a woman will sever her “existing relationship with that unborn human being.”

The court’s majority said the will of the state legislature should be respected. But in dissent, Judge Diana E. Murphy, a Clinton appointee, accused the majority of bypassing “important principles of constitutional law.”

Obama can certainly appoint more progressive judges, but he can’t undo this kind of damage.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

About Jill

Jill began blogging for Feministe in 2005. She has since written as a weekly columnist for the Guardian newspaper and in April 2014 she was appointed as senior political writer for Cosmopolitan magazine.
This entry was posted in Law, Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Bush Legal Legacy: More Whites, Men, and Conservatives

  1. I’d be surprised, but it’s like Bush’s diplomats: donate $100,000 and represent the US to the world, with no qualifications whatsoever. Great.

  2. Bagelsan says:

    donate $100,000 and represent the US to the world, with no qualifications whatsoever

    In all fairness, that’s not a bad representation… ^^;

  3. Jessica says:

    William H Pryor is a lunatic fringe idiot.

    Seriously, can Bush just GTFO already, before he screws up our country further? Between this and last minute rule enactments, I worry.

  4. Peter says:

    Bush’s appointees nationwide have generally been “less hospitable” to allowing groups without direct financial interests to intervene in court, said University of Pittsburgh law professor Arthur D. Hellman, an expert on federal appellate courts. That viewpoint skews litigation by giving “less attention to values that are not measured in dollars,” he said.

    This is the catch-22 that libertarians, wingnuts, and conservatives hope people never catch onto.

    In their world view, all we need to achieve utopia is to deregulate the markets, and unleash the magic of unfettered corporate ingenuity. In order to appear reasonable (and semi-sane) they always assure us that in the case of malfeasance, people can always resort to suing the big monied interests in the courts. In short, corporations will behave if they have the threat of potential legal retribution hanging over their heads.

    What wingnuts hope people never figure out about this shell game, is that they have always fully intended to make redress in the courts harder for litigants and advocacy groups who don’t have a lot of money and resources.

  5. kyle says:

    The list of things that will be hard, if not impossible, for Obama to “undo” is growing every day. There is a list of some 20 rules and regulations that Bush is pushing through in his “11th hour.”

    Many rules, on climate change for example, might be passed by Bush during his last 60 days and will take Obama years to reverse. There are rules that prevent the gov from being able to regulate toxins in the workplace, make oil and mining possible on the fringes of national parks….terrible terrible stuff.

  6. denelian says:

    anyone else getting the vibe that this is the lashing temper-tantrum of a 5 year old who has just been told that next time “Barry” gets to play the lone ranger while W is the relegated to being one of the Injuns?

    that this is all petty revenge>

  7. Lucky says:

    Join a new grassroots non-profit organization that is committed to ending gender inequality and sexual harassment. We are tired of the “brush it under the rug” attitude and taboo associated with speaking out against sexual harassment not only for women, but for men as well, and we need your help to provide aid and support to those individuals who have taken the risk of reporting discriminating and harassing behavior. Join this admirable cause at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=37558609042.

Comments are closed.