District and appellate courts more important than Supreme

I'm sorry to start another thread about the compromise "victory" being claimed by the Democrats, but I felt there was an issue here than many outside the legal profession might not get. District and appellate court judges are actually more important than Supreme Court justices in many respects. I know that sounds counterintuitive, so let me explain.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over very few matters, and the majority of its docket consists of cases which are appealed from the circuits. The Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is *discretionary*, which if course means they don't have to take a case if they don't want to. It requires the vote of 4 justices for the SC to hear an appeal, and all too often the Court fails to act on rather important cases/issues.

What that means is that the rulings from the ciruit courts of appeals are often the law of the circuit, even if not the law of the entire nation. The judges in the district courts and courts of appeals hear far more cases and issue far more rulings which impact workers, women, minorities, the environment, etc. far more than the SC. They have far more control over the procedural rules by which suit may be brought and must be prosecuted, and can impact each one of far more than the average SC opinion.

What the compromise accomplished was to allow 3 more ultra conservative jurists on the appellate bench for lifetime appointments. Only 3, some may say. But they are 3 more rather conservative judges who will in many ways have far more impact on our lives than the Supreme Court justice position for which the filibuster was supposedly saved. A Pyrrhic victory indeed.


This was one of our best opportunities to show the world what the republican party really stands for, and bring their pro-corporate and anti-privacy policies to light for those who had not really been paying attention (ie, the much sought "swing voters"). We had already approved 98% of Bush's nominees, while the republicans reached no where near that figure while Clinton was in office. We not only had the facts, but we actually had the popular support on this one- the majority of respondents in all the polls were with us. Indeed, we should have learned from this fiasco that we would have been right to fight even more of his nominees!

And instead, the party rolled over and played dead once again. So happy that the "gentlemenly" atmosphere of the Senate is preserved, and that the relationships of certain Senators were saved. I'm sure that our workers, minorites, etc. will also be happy to remember that when they are getting screwed by the rulings of Bush's judges.

And I have the added benefit (as do you, I assume) of having seen Patricia Owen's path of destruction up close in our state.

This woman ended Wm Searcy's life. And made a boatload of others' existence unbearable.

Bottom line - these extremists will slash and burn a whole lot more people for a whole lot longer.

America lost.

But I keep seeing waaay too many posts arguing that we had to preserve the filibuster for the all important Supreme Court. :eyes: