Emilio Garza, Fifth Circuit: This former marine captain has clear conservative stands on all the important issues (like the purported error of Roe v. Wade). But he's shrewd enough not to wear them on his sleeve. Appointed by President Bush in 1991 after three years as a U.S. district court judge and another three as a state trial judge, Garza was also a finalist for the High Court seat that went to Clarence Thomas. His Hispanic background is a big asset: Both presidential candidates would love to appoint the first Hispanic to the Court.
As Capitol Hill adjusts to Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords's earthshaking repudiation of the Republican Party, the Senate Judiciary Committee is bracing itself to be the center of the aftershocks. The judicial branch of government, after all, is where a president is likely to have his most far-reaching impact; the judges he appoints will last much longer than the one or two terms he serves. And the Judiciary Committee--which is a key venue for debate about potent legislative issues such as abortion, school prayer, flag burning, and civil rights--is also the primary battleground in judicial-confirmation fights. Thus, with George W.
While Democrats in the Senate failed to block the appointment of John Ashcroft as attorney general, they did send a message--albeit a weak one--with their opposition. Their 42 votes against Ashcroft were enough to demonstrate that they might have filibustered the appointment and that they could block any future judicial appointment they found similarly unpalatable. Yet the Democrats appear to have missed their own message, because they subsequently have given a virtually free ride to what ought to have been an equally controversial appointment: Ted Olson as solicitor general. Under serendipitous cover of a foreign policy imbroglio with China, Olson sailed quietly through an abbreviated hearing in the Senate and appears at this writing to be headed for imminent confirmation.
If this article had appeared before Tuesday, March 27, the sentence you are
reading now would have said: "A recent decision by a district court judge about
admissions policies at the University of Michigan is heartening news for
supporters of affirmative action in higher education." Instead, that introductory
sentence needs to be replaced with this one: "A recent decision by a district
court judge about admissions policies at the University of Michigan is disheartening news for supporters of affirmative action in higher
In the world of television, imitation is not simply the sincerest form of flattery; it is among the most lucrative. That's why network executives are doing everything they can to cash in on the reality TV fad. It's also why the hottest new category of reality TV shows turns out to be that old faithful of programming, the courtroom drama.