(2 of 2)
During two terms as Governor of California, Reagan named 645 judges, a large proportion of them white, male and conservative. One of his three appointments to the California Supreme Court, that of William P. Clark, brought some hoots of derision because Clark was a former Reagan aide and had a poor academic record. Yet, with his prior judicial experience and the support of a topflight staff, he has ended up serving capably. By and large, most experts give Reagan reasonably high marks for his appointments and say that he used judgeships as political payoffs less often than either Edmund G. ("Pat") Brown or Jerry Brown, the father and son who served immediately before and after him. Even a Carter campaign aide concedes: "You can't go after Reagan for appointing bad judges. That's a bum rap."
President Carter's own judicial appointments stack up as one of the most impressive parts of his record, at least among liberals and moderates. He has appointed more minorities and women to federal benches than all previous Presidents combined. Some observers have consequently questioned whether he is more concerned with diversity than merit, but C.I.J. Organizer Floyd Abrams, a leading First Amendment lawyer, maintains that most of his appointees are "extraordinarily highly qualified." During his Administration, Congress has created 152 additional lower-court judgeships. "With that many new judges the tendency should have been for lower quality: a few bright lights, then politics as usual," says Thomas Susman of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff. "That isn't what Carter's done. We had more bright lights than we had any business getting."
Yet it is the Supreme Court that remains the primary concern. As Greenberg says, "It sets the direction and tone for courts all across the country." And it is the high-court selections that are expected to give the next President his greatest opportunity to put a definitive stamp on the nation's legal system: five of the nine present Justices are over 70 years old.