"Elections have consequences," part infinity... Nominating judges. [View all]

[Grins]

This is from a 20 Feb 2024 Washington Post column by Ruth Marcus.
Ms. Marcus is responding to a judge who had written to her asking:

“Why does the media insist on identifying the president who appointed the federal judges who make a newsworthy decision?"

Apparently the judge did not know that picking judges based on party ideology goes back to the early 19th century. A simple look at the influence of those judges from the gilded age through and beyond to the administration of FDR alone would have been an eye-opener.

Turns out there is a recent evidence about the decisions by judges and their party affiliations; a research project from Harvard that suggests we have underestimated the impact of party affiliation on judicial outcomes. This paragraph by Ms. Marcus struck me:

"Had Al Gore become president in 2000 instead of George W. Bush, ...a two-term Gore presidency, and the judges he would have appointed, would have changed the outcome in about 10,000 cases over the next 20 years, including 2,500 improved outcomes for individuals in civil litigation, about 1,100 improved outcomes for private parties in civil suits against the government, about 2,500 improved outcomes for criminal defendants in criminal appeal, about 1,500 improved outcomes for immigrants in immigrations appeals and about 1,100 improved outcomes for prisoners in prisoner litigation."

And each one of those cases affects who-knows-how-many other cases!

At the end, Marcus quotes the Harvard researcher:

“It’s important to know that this effect is not just in highly controversial cases. It’s in almost all cases.”

Here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/20/judge-political-party-president-trump-marcus/