Donald J. Trump’s presidency has broken the mold in many ways, including the way he thinks about judicial appointments. Unlike other recent presidents, Trump was open about how “his” justices could lean to rule in a certain way on important issues important to the voters he wanted (eg, on issues like guns, religion, and abortion). Other factors such as age and personal loyalty to Trump appeared to be important factors. With a selection process like this, one would expect Trump to choose from a smaller pool of candidates than other presidents. Given the small pool and deviation from traditional criteria for selecting “good” judges, we were curious how Trump’s judges performed on a basic set of judicial measures. Another prediction is that Trumpian restrictions on judicial selection have produced a different set of judges. In particular, it will not work well against the sets of judges appointed by other presidents. Using data on appellate court judges serving from January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2023, we examine judge data across three different dimensions: opinion generation, influence (measured by citations), and independence or what we call “maverick” behavior. Contrary to predictions of ineffectiveness, Trump’s judges outperformed other judges, with the highest level of judges filled mostly by Trump judges.
That new paper was written by Stephen J. Choi and Mitu Gulati, who appear to be academic “normies” (NYU and UVA, respectively), not MAGAland crazies.
By using the excellent Kevin Lewis.
Source link