But a president's legacy lives on through his appointments to the federal courts. Though some say there is not a dime's worth of difference between the parties, there is a gold-mine gap between President Clinton's stated views and the rulings of his activist judges. By Terry Eastland Roughly this time four years ago conservatives frustrated with the listless campaign of George Bush said there were nonetheless some 170 reasons to reelect him. Mr. Bush's defeat spelled change for a bench 70 percent of which he and his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, had chosen. Now, four years later, the question is whether the change will be arrested and reversed, with Bob Dole's election, or accelerated, with Bill Clinton's reelection.
Numbers serve to introduce the story.
Thanks to more retirements than anticipated, Bill Clinton has been able to appoint not 170 but 202 judges, more than a quarter of the federal bench. If reelected, Mr. Clinton will likely name a similar number of new judges and thus will have chosen, over his two terms, slightly more than half the entire federal judiciary. Mr. Clinton already has appointed 170 of the 649 district judges. He has nominated another 20 of these trial judges, and there are 42 vacancies still to be filled. Over the next four years, assuming the usual pace of retirements, there likely will be more than 100 district court vacancies.