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!