[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