[the_unknown]

Is this really necessary? "xxx is a George W. Bush appointee. xxx also a Bush appointee, and Barack Obama appointee xxx joined xxx opinion."

Perhaps when discussing items of moral importance and life or death judgments it may be of historical/cultural reference but a copyright conflict seems rather out of bounds for such detail.

[AequitasOmnibus]

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]

That 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]

I 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]

Hah! That’s not the “confirmation bias” I’m used to, but very apt.

[iguy]

Agree 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.

[patcon]

funny, that was the main thing I noticed and appreciated about the journalism. why would you not want this made clear in the context of judges doing the very thing we're thinking about when they're appointed (ruling on stuff)?

imho, this is the "rubber hits the road" context. if we want our opinions of appointments to be grounded in... well... reality, then we should maybe care less about appointments when they're abstractly happening and we're horse-betting, and think MORE about them when they're ruling.

Frankly, I'm confused how you're thinking about this, such that you would think someone WOULDN'T appreciate having this inline. Do you think politics are some dirty thing that we should become amnesiac about as soon as someone is executing their duties...? Sorry, I'm just confused. Can you explain the foundational belief underpinning your comment?

[SpicyLemonZest]

Many people (including myself and I assume the original commenter) feel that judging is supposed to be an apolitical duty. So saying "Randy Smith, also a Bush appointee," sounds problematic to me in the same way as "Randy Smith, also male" would: it's not false, but the mindset where it matters is deeply concerning.

[LordDragonfang]

>judging is supposed to be an apolitical duty

Supposed to be, but in many cases is not, which is why those details are important.

[SpicyLemonZest]

The problem is that emphasizing the details also feeds back into the politicization. It would be like responding to political bias at the DMV by having every clerk wear a little badge saying which party they are: there might be a few people who will use that information to better investigate and detect bias, but a lot of people are going to see the political labelling and conclude it's just a deliberately political function of government.

And I don't think this is an abstract hypothetical; I've seen an increasing number of people in recent years dismiss even the aspiration to a nonpartisan judiciary as silly and naive.

[patcon]

I don't agree -- I highly value our being humbled by how often a judge from "the other side" votes our way -- but genuinely appreciate hearing how you're thinking about it. Thanks for the words

[throwaway2245]

It's useful for voters to know how they can expect appointees to rule, and to hold administrations to account.

This might seem obvious, but: if copyright is within the scope of the court, then it's within the scope of the appointment. Therefore, it's relevant.

[ghaff]

I dunno. A lot of people jump to the conclusion that things are partisan political decisions these days even when they're not.

[kristopolous]

That's my reading: a defense of the party impartiality of the judiciary more than any attribution to a partisan group.

Of course they could still be biased say, in favor of those with power and capital. But since in practice, both political parties bow to capital with effectively equal deference, such a bias wouldn't surface by merely listing out which president appointed whom.

[dragonwriter]

> Perhaps when discussing items of moral importance

The scope of free speech protections (and, on the other side, the scope of personal property rights as well) is a matter of moral importance, moreover the scope of free speech protections is a matter on which there is particularly active current controversy in which a sharp partisan divide on the issue is part of a central political narrative, and this is a significant factor in modern American politics.

[IfOnlyYouKnew]

I guess it depends on what one considers necessary...

If you did a survey, I would believe public opinion to be closer to "judges are partisan and always decide along ideological lines" than reality.

With that assumption, mentions of who appointed judges when writing about their decisions would also work against public cynicism on this issue.

Unless, of course, people somehow manage to give more weight to evidence confirming their biases than evidence against.

[newacct583]

Yes, it is. In fact, I missed that last paragraph while skimming for the link to the decision and went straight to wikipedia to check the details on the three justices involved. It's nice to imagine that we shouldn't attribute partisan lean to our courts, but in the real world we all know there is one in many cases. And it's important to know when evidence cuts against that trend as much as it is when it confirms our priors.

[vmception]

Very necessary, it validates how impartial the court is to some people.

There are people that would question a court's validity more if some midwestern appeals circuit had 3 Trump appointees reversing an opinion, just like there are other people that would raise an eyebrow at anything the ninth circuit rules.

So they list who was appointed by whom.