Dole Stretches Truth In Attacking Clinton JudgesBy Brooks Jackson/CNN WASHINGTON (CNN, April 1) -- Crime and punishment already are issues in the 1996 presidential campaign, with Sen. Robert Dole (R-Kan.) complaining that the judges appointed by President Bill Clinton are too lenient. "We don't need judges around like the one in New York who turned loose a drug dealer," Dole declared recently.(64K WAV sound) Well, hold on! Sen. Dole is guilty -- of election-year exaggeration. It is true that U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer Jr. of New York tossed out an accused drug runner's confession, and 80 pounds of cocaine and heroin found in her car, on a technicality. But the woman was not turned loose, as Dole said. Carol Bayless is still in jail, awaiting trial, and today Judge Baer reversed his very unpopular decision. Judge Baer, nevertheless, is exhibit "A" in a major Republican effort to make an election-year case against Clinton's judges. Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, "The president talks about putting cops on the beat, yet he appoints judges who are putting criminals back on the street." "He appointed judges who acquitted murderers and drug dealers," House Speaker Newt Gingrich joined in.
Behind all the political spin there is a legitimate issue. When it comes to crime, just how liberal are Clinton's judges? Let's take a look at some facts. For 26 years, professor Robert Carp of the University of Houston has kept track of federal judges' published opinions -- 55,000 of them. And he found Clinton's federal judges make liberal rulings in criminal cases 33 percent of the time.
That's more often than judges appointed by Republicans Gerald Ford, at 32 percent, or Richard Nixon, 30 percent, George Bush, 29 percent and Ronald Reagan, 23 percent. But it is less often than those appointed by Democrat Jimmy Carter, at 38 percent. Says Carp: "There's no empirical evidence that they (Clinton's appointees) are inordinately disposed toward criminal defendants or inordinately liberal; they are kind of moderate to moderately liberal." Clinton has appointed fewer white males -- 39 percent -- and more women and minorities than any president in history. Bush appointed 73 percent white males, compared to Reagan's 85 percent and Carter's 68 percent. And, 67 percent of Clinton's judges received the American Bar Association's highest rating, "well qualified" or "exceptionally well qualified." More than for Bush at 52 percent, Reagan at 53 percent, or Carter at 57 percent. "The Clinton Administration has been avoiding people that might be considered liberal activists," noted University of Massachusetts political scientist Sheldon Goldman. "In fact, liberal groups have been complaining that the Clinton Administration has missed the opportunity to appoint liberal activists." Clinton's own spokesman criticized Judge Baer's ruling in that drug case. Dole says that's not enough. "He ought to be impeached instead of being reprimanded. If he doesn't resign, he ought to be impeached. He ought to be impeached," Dole said. ![]() That comment brought a rebuke last week from four senior federal judges in New York -- Judges Jon O. Newman, J. Edward Lumbard, Wilfred Feinberg and James L. Oakes -- who issued a statement saying, "The Constitution limits impeachment to those who have committed 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' A ruling in a contested case cannot remotely be considered a ground for impeachment." Three of those judges were Republicans. There's little question Dole would appoint judges who are more conservative than Clinton's moderately liberal judges. But in straining to make that point, Dole and his Republican allies are stretching the facts. |
|
AllPolitics home page |
|
|
|
Copyright © 1997 AllPolitics All Rights Reserved |