One Reason Judicial Appointments are Important

From Bushgreenwatch:

October 08, 2004 Study Finds Wide Democrat-Republican Chasm on Environmental Decisions by Federal Judges A new study tabulating the environmental decisions issued by federal judges over the past four years has found a yawning gap between rulings handed down by jurists chosen by Republican Presidents and those of Democratic appointees. The non-partisan Environmental Law Institute (ELI) studied all 325 cases brought in district and appellate courts under the nation’s cornerstone National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) from January 21, 2001 through June 30, 2004. Among the findings: - Federal district judges appointed by a Democratic President ruled in favor of environmental protection 60% of the time. Judges appointed by Republican Presidents ruled in favor of the environment 28% of the time. - District judges appointed by President George W. Bush ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs only 17% of the time. - When industry or pro-development interests sue under NEPA, the results are almost completely reversed. Democratic appointees rule in favor of such plaintiffs 14% of the time, while Republican appointees rule in favor almost 60% of the time. - At the three-judge circuit court level, panels with two or more judges appointed by a Democrat ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs 58% of the time. Panels with a majority of Republican appointees ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs in only 10% of cases. - When all three judges were Democratic appointees, the panel ruled in favor of environmental plaintiffs 75% of the time, compared to 11% for entirely Republican-appointed panels.

A Kerry win will allow for more Democratic appointments in the court system. Kerry: Good for the Environment.