GINSBURG WILL BE AS GOOD AS WE CAN GET FROM CLINTONITES

This column has been often critical of President Clinton when of the opinion that his actions, policies or appointees to high office are likely to hurt the country. So let us praise his administration when he makes a good move.

The appointment of appellate Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the U.S. Supreme Court is a laudable choice of a fine judicial mind and temperament. She is clearly a mainstream liberal, and as such would not make the list were a Republican doing the picking. But she is as good as can be expected from a President as beholden to liberals as Bill Clinton. It was good to see the President choosing Judge Ginsburg over one of the absolute nut cases, say, someone from among the radical faculty at Harvard Law School, whom many Clintonites would have preferred.

Two former law clerks, Peter Huber and Richard Taranto, both of whom are conservatives, had this to say about Judge Ginsburg in an article this week:

".... Read a lot of Judge Ginsburg's opinions, and you are struck by the voice. It is the voice of scrupulous honesty, freedom from cant, and strong moral commitment. When you read her description of the facts of the case, or of precedents that point in opposite directions, you don't know which way the case is going to come out. You approach the point of decision, at which many a less talented or more ideological judge would indulge in rhetoric, and you get instead a measured expression of reasons in her own words, not those of the latest political slogan. ...

"We know her well both personally and from her many writings. Ruth Ginsburg is a judge's judge, like [eminent late judges] Henry Friendly and Learned Hand: She believes in the rule of law. She should be supported by liberals and conservatives alike."

This is all that can be asked for in judicial appointments: basic knowledge and competence, a moderate temperament and above all, a clear knowledge of the judge's restrained function to interpret and apply not make our laws.

President Clinton badly needs a victory, and it appears that in Judge Ginsburg, he'll get one. On the other hand, his impending "victories" for his tax-laden budget will likely be his undoing, by halting a weak recovery and sending us back to the sort of economic doldrums that defeated George Bush.

* * * * *

Party lockstep

The Clinton tax increases won a narrow 219 to 213 vote only after several Democratic subcommittee chairmen were told they might lose their posts if they voted no. But the House leadership still worries about another revolt when Members have to approve the House-Senate compromise of the bill. So now they are putting the screws to the 11 subcommittee chairmen who held firm and voted against the President. Wednesday before last, Democratic Members debated a petition signed by a third of their number that called for the dissident chairmen to be ousted. While no action was taken, the chairmen were put on notice that their House careers could be at risk if they don't fall in line next time.

This isn't about breaking gridlock. It's about forcing elected representatives to march in lockstep behind a flawed, unpopular program that simply has no growth component.

Wall Street Journal

* * * * *

I'm currently reading a fine and authoritative book entitled "The Litigation Explosion: What Happened When America Unleashed the Lawsuit", written by scholar Walter Olson. It lays out in all the depressing detail how standards in our legal system have been systematically undermined over the last 25 years, with devastating consequences for our society.

In some other reading recently, I came across the following commentary on the same subject. Its litany of actual legal judgments would have been a joke only a few short years ago.