Simply put, why we must fight Bush's Judges

•There is a federal court system and 50 state court systems.
•There are Trial courts, Intermediate Appellate courts, and a Supreme Court.
•Trial judges referee trials, decide if a case can move forward, decide what evidence can be heard, and sometimes decide the case on the facts.
•Appellate judges review trial judges to make sure they were fair and within the Constitution.
•Both Trial Judges and Appellate judges have tremendous discretion in how they interpret the law and facts. Their ideology matters.
•The President appoints federal judges for LIFE. They are the President’s longest lasting domestic legacy.
•Progressives believe that constitutional principles should be interpreted for 2005, not “strictly constructed” as if we’re still living in the year 1789.
•Progressives also believe that everyone has the right to be heard in federal or state court. Why is “the little guy” stigmatized for seeking justice? If you don’t pay you bills, won’t a big corporation sue YOU?

Judicial Appointments
Many say that a President’s longest lasting domestic legacy is his judicial appointments. There has been a concerted effort to pack the federal trial and appellate courts with right wing ideologues, all of whom are appointed for life.
TRIAL COURTS- Issues of law, equity, and remedies are decided in trial courts, where judges have great discretion on interpreting facts and in view what would be prudent public policy. Rulings in cases such as injunctions for polluters, certifying class members in class action suits, and First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment issues are often debatable. As such, rulings often depend on the ideology of the judge. One trial judge can make major public policy decisions for a state, or judicial district within a state.
APPELLATE COURTS- California is in the ninth of thirteen geographic circuits where federal cases are reviewed. There are many dynamics at play in the court system. Federal courts are generally only in major cities, and administratively are difficult to get into. Also, they are less swayed by public opinion because judges are appointed. State courts are more plentiful and tend to be more populist, and have bigger jury awards. On issues affecting a small and distinct minority, like ethnic groups or workers at a plant trying to organize, conservatives do not want them to have access to federal courts since a more impartial opinion will be given freer from social bias and local economic interests. But with economic justice for consumers, conservatives want the case in federal court since corporations would have to pay out more in state courts. As far as separation of powers, conservatives tend to vest more discretion within the executive branch, particularly with law enforcement with less oversight for judges and Congress. The Right’s normal approach to interpreting the Constitution is “strict construction”, or viewing the constitution with a 1789 mentality. Normally power is shifted to states with conservative rulings. Special interests can more easily influence state and local regulators than federal regulators. However, when a state is tougher on an industry than the federal government, like Massachussetts was on tobacco advertising, conservatives on the Supreme Court then claim federal preemptory principles when it effectuates conservative public policy.