The latest issue of Judicature is out, and it offers the most comprehensive empirical look yet at the judicial legacy of former President George W. Bush. The always-valuable magazine published by the American Judicature Society comes to the conclusion that "his judicial legacy may well be Bush's most enduring accomplishment," as one article puts it.
Through 59 confirmed appointments to appeals courts, 261 to the district courts, and two to the Supreme Court, "They definitely achieved the goal of moving the federal bench in a conservative direction," says longtime Judicature editor David Richert.
University of Massachusetts political scientist Sheldon Goldman, who has been analyzing the demographics of judicial appointees for decades, was leading author of a study in the magazine that concludes that Bush's legacy is that of "a highly professionally qualified diverse judiciary,' but it was achieved through a politicized and confrontational selection and confirmation process. "Rather than lower the partisan temperature, the president raised it," writes Goldman.
What about the decisions produced by Bush appointees? University of Houston political scientist Robert Carp has been measuring the leanings of federal judges for many years as well, and he returned to the task for Judicature. By tallying 2,680 decisions made by Bush-appointed district court judges, Carp concluded that "the Bush team is on the whole the most conservative on record."
Carp and his co-authors reached that view in part by quantifying the percentages of "liberal" decisions in criminal justice (siding with the defendant) and labor, economic regulation, and civil rights cases (siding with the employee, consumer, or plaintiff.) By that measure only 32 percent of the Bush judges' rulings were liberal, compared to 35 percent for appointees of Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush, 43 percent for Clinton appointees and 50 percent for Carter judges.
As for the Supreme Court, Sweet Briar College political scientist Barbara Perry argues that Bush appointees John Roberts Jr. and Samuel Alito Jr. have produced opinions that reflect "a conservative agenda that reaches back to the conservatism of Ronald Reagan." She cautions that "several terms on the nation's highest court do not a legacy make," but still concludes that in several doctrinal areas, the two "have pushed the high court to the more conservative position."
An article by American University government professor Jennifer Diascro and Rorie Spill Solberg at Oregon State also indicates that Bush sought out and appointed diverse nominees, and he named more Hispanics to the bench (30) than any of his predecessors. Overall, however, 78 percent of Bush judges were male and 82 percent white -- percentages that are similar to most other presidents except Clinton, whose appointees included somewhat more females and minority members.
If one considers the word "accomplishment" to include negative items, like ruining the economy and getting us involved in the Iraq war, Bush's judicial appointments are nothing in comparison.
Posted by: John Gaguine | July 24, 2009 at 01:57 AM
I wonder how the ethnic numbers would work out if you counted all nominees, not just those confirmed and on the bench. Didn't the Democrats stall several of Bush's female and nonwhite nominees, such as Estrada (Hispanic), Saad (Arab), and Carolyn Kuhl (female)? Also, to the extent that Janice Rogers Brown got held up so long, didn't that make clear to Bush that white male conservatives could get confirmed more quickly than those considered more dangerous to Leahy et al?
Posted by: curious | July 23, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Thanks for the good article. I've been looking for precisely this kind of information.
JR
Posted by: Joe Reisinger | July 22, 2009 at 10:24 PM