Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site eosp1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!eosp1!lincoln From: lincoln@eosp1.UUCP (Dick Lincoln) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: BAD USA Supreme Court Decision Message-ID: <690@eosp1.UUCP> Date: Wed, 14-Mar-84 10:53:35 EST Article-I.D.: eosp1.690 Posted: Wed Mar 14 10:53:35 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 15-Mar-84 00:56:36 EST References: <329@houxu.UUCP>, <667@eosp1.UUCP> <612@pyuxa.UUCP> Organization: Exxon Office Systems, Princeton, NJ Lines: 26 >> Sorry to flame folks, but this type of putting the blame on the >> current President (no matter who), does nothing to address the real >> problem; what are we going to do about that bunch of numbskulls we >> call Congress? >> T. C. Wheeler That's not all there is to it. Federal judges are appointed by presidents and generally rubber stamped by US Senates (some of RMN's absurd appointments not withstanding), and anyone who thinks we have a system of laws rather than of men and women is foolish. Long ago I concluded that the most far reaching affect any president is likely to have on the USA (I ignore the possibility of pushing "the big red button") is his judicial appointments which are almost always for the life of the appointee. Now this particular law may be as Swiss Cheese-like as TCW claims, but I doubt that the Carter years Supreme Court would have reached this decision that separates out individual college programs and their discrimination effects so that the federal aid to each program, rather than *all* aid, must be challenged. This is perhaps the only reason I will defend for voting carefully in presidential elections and primaries. Through the almost impenetrable haze of TV "image making" that now suffices for election campaigns, we still can, I think, make out what kind of judges a candidate will appoint. Vote to save your future litigation!