The impulse to link judges to who appointed them
A curious phrase is slipping into news reporting, social media commentaries and public vernacular on court reporting.
These days, every story about a judicial ruling on a controversial social issue seems compelled to identify the administration under which the judge was appointed.
In the context of our times, I understand this impulse. If an appeals court judge appointed by former President Donald Trump issues a ruling unfavorable to him, that lends authority to the independence of the judiciary and can deflect complaints that the judge is acting out of loyalty to a person rather than respect for the law. In today's political environment, that is an important point to emphasize.
However, a troubling byproduct of the practice at other times is the subtle inference that judicial reasoning is influenced more by politics than by reason or statute. Such thinking takes a big, dangerous step toward undermining our faith in the court system.
It is particularly evident in cases related to the criminal charges against Trump. Even before she presided over a single argument, liberals decried the assignment, which occurred by random selection, of federal Judge Aileen Cannon to Trump's Florida case involving his handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Likewise, conservatives are quick to criticize the judgments of U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, the Obama appointee overseeing Trump's criminal case in Washington, D.C., related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
It's undeniable that the administration nominating judges would seek individuals who are likely to interpret laws favorably to its policy goals, and it is natural to understand the difficulties judges might have separating their personal political or social values from the dictates of the law. But, as nearly every nominee emphasizes during appointment hearings, we ought to assume that it is the law above all else that influences a judge's legal reasoning.
It is worth noting that Warren Burger, the Supreme Court Chief Justice who oversaw some of the most liberal-leaning rulings of the late 20th century, including orders on school busing and the Roe v. Wade decision that was overturned just this year, was appointed by conservative Richard Nixon. Although historians and other political observers took note of the Burger irony over the years, I don't recall the phrase "who was appointed by Richard Nixon" in many, if any, of the tens of thousands of stories about the abortion ruling over the course of its half-century tenure.
No doubt, research could find countless examples of cases where a judge's ruling contradicted the values of the person who nominated him or her and of cases where a judge's ruling coincided with the values of the appointing president. But aside from the acknowledged academic value of such an exercise, we need to be careful about normalizing the practice of linking every ruling to the judge's appointor. And, importantly, readers should be wary when they come across that not-so-subtle phrase "who was appointed by" of what assumptions they make.
• Jim Slusher, jslusher@dailyherald.com, is managing editor for opinion at the Daily Herald. Follow him on Facebook at www.facebook.com/jim.slusher1 and on Twitter at @JimSlusher.