one of the more offensive onslaughts on the English language，<br >~. R. Haldeman testified before the Ervin Committee of his<br >~sire to operate a "zero-defect" administration~ But one of the<br >~ore conspicuous defects that became apparent long before<br >~i~atergate， was the inability of the Nixon people to do adequate<br > earch on who was appointed to high office.<br >~; This was particularly true at the Department of Justice， where<br > less than four Supreme Court vacancies were given to Richard<br >~ixon to fill， and four nominees were turned down because John<br >~itchell and his colleagues had neglected to look adequately<br >~to their backgrounds.<br >~ The first was Clement Haynesworth， Jr.， named to fill a vacancy<br >~eated when Abe Fortas was required to resign because of seri-<br > cordtict-of-interest charges. (Fortas was revealed to have<br >~anged to receive $20，000 per year， the payment to continue<br > his wife if he predeceased her， for vaguely specified work for<br > foundation dominated by a friend in serious trouble with the<br >~.) The Nixon people seemed surprised when it was discov-<br >~d that their nommee， Haynesworth， was a major shareholder<br >a a company which seemed to have benefited from a decision in<br >~laich he took part. His nomination was turned down by the<br >enate， 55--45， after spirited debate.<br > Nixon-presumably on the advice of Mitchell-next tried to fill<br > vacancy with perhaps the worst Supreme Court nomination<br > our history， former judge G. Harrold Carswe]l. Carswell was a<br >~lixon appointee to the Court of Appeals， but judges at that level<br >