Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxz.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxz!halle1
From: halle1@houxz.UUCP (J.HALLE)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.politics
Subject: Re: Supreme Court
Message-ID: <896@houxz.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Jul-84 09:08:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: houxz.896
Posted: Tue Jul 24 09:08:08 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 00:14:45 EDT
References: <450@teldata.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 11

Although I cannot recall when all of them were appointed, two examples
should suffice to show that the president has less control than supposed.
Justice Stevens was appointed by Ford.  Ford expected him to be relatively
conservative to middle of the road.  As it turns out, Stevens has usually
sided with the minority liberal side (Powell et al.).  Chief Justice Warren
was appointed by Eisenhower.  Eisenhower wanted someone who would be as
conservative as he (Ike) was.  We all know how that turned out.

I'm sure there are also examples the other way.  The point is that although
the president has influence on the direction the Court could take, his
influence is not large enough to make an issue out of it.