3 ms·
In this case it's probably superfluous to include under which president the judge was appointed, but there is merit to including the information generally. The
by AequitasOmnibus 6y ago
In this case it's probably superfluous to include under which president the judge was appointed, but there is merit to including the information generally.
The Circuits ordinarily hear cases in 3-judge panels (occasionally cases are heard en banc, where more/all of the circuit judges will hear the case). The outcome of a large number of cases can be predicted based upon the composition of the panel.
So where "conservative" judges make up 2/3 or 3/3 of the panel, you tend to see "conservative" (read: pro-business, pro-prosecution) outcomes and vice-versa with "liberal" judges.
It could be coincidence, but as someone who has followed circuit opinions for years, the panel composition has corresponded with the ultimate outcome a surprising number of times. (N.B. it would be interesting to statistically track the panel composition/outcome metric to see how often the correlation actually exists).
- fy20 6y agoThat seems somewhat wrong...? I mean these judges are supposed to be impartial, but if outcome is mostly based on who gets picked, then that isn't the case.
- AequitasOmnibus 6y agoI think it comes down to how both sides view impartiality. There's definitely confirmation bias when the president nominates a judge - often the candidates come from the same party so they share some broad ideological positions. Most judges I think do see themselves as impartial jurists even if the results tend to skew toward political outcomes.
- josv 6y agoHah! That’s not the “confirmation bias” I’m used to, but very apt.
- iguy 6y agoAgree it seems a bit wrong. Worth bearing in mind that cases which go to higher courts are usually ones which lower courts think aren't clear, or different courts disagree.