[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.