Jewish World Review June 14, 2004 /25 Sivan, 5764

Terry Eastland

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Reagan's influence is apparent in federal judiciary | In the fall of 1981, Ronald Reagan placed a phone call from the Oval Office to a lawyer named Jesse Eschbach. Mr. Reagan had decided to nominate Mr. Eschbach to the federal bench and was calling to ask him to serve. Would he serve! Of course! Judge Eschbach later wrote Mr. Reagan to express "my deep appreciation for your kindness and consideration in calling me. It was an experience our family will never forget."

Jesse Eschbach was one of the 382 judges Ronald Reagan appointed. That was (and remains) a record number for one president. With his choices, Mr. Reagan filled almost half of the sitting federal judiciary.

Mr. Reagan made similar calls to most of his nominees. That was a Reagan innovation. The phone calls indicated how much Mr. Reagan cared about judicial selection. So did the process he instituted for vetting nominees. Mr. Reagan was the first president to bring serious candidates for the bench to Washington for extensive interviewing. More than 1,000 prospects made the trip.

Mr. Reagan had the same interest in judicial selection as his Democratic hero, Franklin D. Roosevelt, did. Presidents who served between them often saw judgeships in terms of patronage — of political favors to be dispensed. But both Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Reagan understood judicial selection as an opportunity to influence the path of the law.

Both men felt that way because both had complaints about where the law had been going. Both contended for judges who would exercise restraint. In Mr. Reagan's case, he objected to the tendency of courts to declare rights not found in the text or history of the Constitution. To Mr. Reagan, the 1973 case of Roe vs. Wade, which declared the abortion right, was the most notorious example of what a court shouldn't do.

Donate to JWR

Mr. Reagan thus initiated through his judicial selection an important argument about the proper role of the courts. The issue has dominated the politics of judicial selection ever since, with the two parties now firmly on opposite sides. The nominees fought over have included ones designated not only for the Supreme Court but also for the lower courts.

Mr. Reagan managed to get most of his nominees confirmed when Republicans held the Senate, as was the case through 1986. But when Democrats regained control in 1987, his batting average declined.

That Congress established the importance to judicial selection of divided government. George H.W. Bush faced a Democratic Senate, and Bill Clinton, for six of his eight years, a Republican Senate. Both presidents would have seen more nominees confirmed had their parties been in the majority.

Today, you can't presume that same-party control of the presidency and the Senate means that a president is going to see his nominees approved. Senate Democrats, though in the minority, have routinely resorted to filibusters to block votes on Bush nominees who otherwise would have been confirmed. Mr. Reagan never experienced a Democratic filibuster, though in 1986 — when the judges' wars started to heat up — his aides thought one might be tried.

Mr. Reagan had opportunities to change the direction of the Supreme Court. In 1981, he appointed Sandra Day O'Connor. In 1986, when he chose William Rehnquist as chief justice, he backfilled by selecting Antonin Scalia. And then, in 1988, the Bork nomination having failed a year earlier, he appointed Anthony Kennedy.

Reagan biographer Lou Cannon has written that Mr. Reagan was "more successful in judicial selection than in any other area of domestic governance." Liberals take satisfaction that he wasn't more successful. Had Robert Bork been confirmed, the court likely would have overruled Roe and moved generally in a more conservative direction.

Ten years have passed since a president (Bill Clinton) got to pick a justice (Stephen Breyer). The record for the number of years between new appointees is 11, set between 1812 and 1823. The advanced age of some justices and the fact that they have well exceeded the average length of service are reasons to think there could be a vacancy — or two or three — during the next presidential term. In which case the argument over the role of the courts will be joined once again.

Every weekday publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Terry Eastland is is publisher of The Weekly Standard.Comment by clicking here.

05/25/04: What do Bush's sagging approval ratings really mean for November?
05/17/04: We must make distinctions between Berg, Abu Ghraib
05/11/04: College costs rise with students' expectations
04/30/04: A country's declining birthrate into oblivion
04/26/04: Dems escalate the judicial war
04/09/04: Bush was right to permit Rice to testify on 9-11
03/25/04: Colleges doing away with their racially exclusive programs
03/02/04: What does a conservative beat mean for The New York Times?
12/31/03: America is right to press for religious freedom worldwide
10/22/03: Case involving pledge should be easy for justices to decide
10/15/03: Dean places political considerations ahead of national security
08/28/03: Colleges creating policies that discourage intellectual exchange
08/14/03: Progressive reform could end up limiting government
07/30/03: Congressman, please consult Miss Manners
07/23/03:Words reveal much about Bush: Maybe there is a reason he won't retract sentence
07/08/03: Justices also said affirmative action must end
06/25/03: Court's law school ruling isn't persuasive
06/24/03: Whatever the Lynch story, everyone wants it
06/18/03: A judge shows he can set aside his strong views
06/04/03: Boston church becomes politically important again
05/28/03: YWCA names culture warrior as its new head
05/23/03: Washington steps in to help teach history
05/13/03: It may take another election to change filibuster rules
05/07/03: Paige works to improve education from inside out
04/30/03: Iraqis have choice to make regarding religious freedom
04/16/03: Is it acceptable for an education secretary to state a personal preference for religious schooling?
04/08/03: University officials must put academics ahead of athletics
04/02/03: Support for our soldiers means support for their orders
03/27/03: 'Free Iraqi Forces' underscore Bush's sincerity
03/18/03: Dems misunderstand judge's job
03/13/03: Justices show right restraint in ruling on anti-crime measures
03/05/03: America's imperial intentions
02/25/03: The weakness of Dems' stated reason for their filibuster makes you wonder whether it is the real reason
02/19/03: Administration fine-tunes religious rights in public education
02/12/03: France and Germany need to be reminded of the necessity of a strong, even predominant America
02/06/03: Judiciary's 'balance' -- or lack of it -- is our doing
01/29/03: The child who almost wasn't
01/21/03: President decides to punt on affirmative action case
01/14/03: Bush's faith has influenced his conduct in public office
01/07/03: Dems need ideas, not more microphones
12/17/02: Gray Lady should learn that times have changed
12/10/02: Will High Court be guilty of activism?
12/03/02: The missing facts in news accounts of Saudi Princess Haifa's putative 'charity'
11/26/02: Americans don't have to be worried about Big Brother
11/19/02: Texas' reputation for flamboyance may be revised
11/11/02: Bush now can repair confirmation system
11/05/02: Dems shouldn't believe too strongly in history
10/30/02: Snipers had lots of motives
10/23/02: No one should be shut out of marketplace of ideas
10/15/02: Open hearings that could imperil the nation
10/08/02: Debating the clear and present danger
10/01/02: A great awakening in China?
09/25/02: Abortion, again? The settled but still unsettling law of Roe v. Wade
09/18/02: A relevant presidency--and irrelevant U.N?
09/10/02: Ashcroft's obtuse judicial statement
09/04/02: The Education Gadfly stings again
08/28/02: So then let the president declare war
08/21/02: Will Bush finally 'fix' affirmative action once and for all?
08/06/02: President must take up cause of Egyptian democracy warrior
07/31/02: With each war, civil liberties are curtailed less

© 2004, Terry Eastland