[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