“Why is it so important to mention the political affiliation (Democrat or Republican) of the president who appointed a judge?” — Marco Moreno
Hi Marco,
It’s about providing context.
Take abortion, for example. The Republican Party spent decades working to put Supreme Court justices on the court who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Part of that project was electing Donald Trump in 2016. He appointed three justices in his first term — most importantly Amy Coney Barrett, who replaced a Democratic appointee and gave the GOP a supermajority on the court. Then the court overturned Roe with the Dobbs decision. Given that background, it would be odd to ignore that the justices in the Dobbs majority were all Republican appointees.
It may be jarring for some people to hear Supreme Court justices described as breaking along party lines like they’re members of Congress. But it wasn’t until relatively recently that the justices perfectly aligned in major cases according to the party of the presidents who appointed them.
That’s not a random development. It’s a direct result of the political machinations I described above that made the court what it is today. Gone are the days of former Justice David Souter, who died last month after retiring in 2009. He was appointed by a Republican president and bucked the party line — including on abortion — prompting cries of “No More Souters” from partisans who demanded ideological purity going forward.
Political affiliation also provides context when discussing lower court judges. To be sure, the context can be different in the lower courts, especially at the trial level, where the bulk of a judge’s work doesn’t necessarily have the same sort of political valence as the work of a Supreme Court justice or even an appeals court judge. For that reason, some judges might never make national news, and when they do, their party affiliation (via the president who appointed them) may be less relevant than it is for a justice or appellate judge. For example, I don’t recall having heard of U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher before she ordered the Trump administration in April to facilitate the return of a wrongly deported person (a different case from Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s). When I looked her up, I saw that she’s a Trump appointee. But looking further into her, I learned that she was initially nominated by former Democratic President Barack Obama, with the support of Maryland’s Democratic senators, though her nomination expired at the end of Obama’s second term. Trump then renominated her in his first term and she was confirmed. I included that context when I wrote about Gallagher’s ruling, because to only say that she’s a Trump appointee could give an incomplete impression. So, there are limits to the relevance of this information, and it sometimes needs more explanation than simply listing the party of the appointing president. Like any fact, its significance depends on the context. Reasonable minds can disagree on a case-by-case basis. My only argument is that this information is not only relevant but essential to understanding certain stories. Have any questions or comments for me? Please submit them on this form for a chance to be featured in the Deadline: Legal Blog and newsletter.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro," a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
Latest Post
Recommended
