Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Grins
Grins's Journal
Grins's Journal
February 24, 2024
Apparently the judge did not know that picking judges based on party ideology goes back to the early 19th century. A simple look at the influence of those judges from the gilded age through and beyond to the administration of FDR alone would have been an eye-opener.
Turns out there is a recent evidence about the decisions by judges and their party affiliations; a research project from Harvard that suggests we have underestimated the impact of party affiliation on judicial outcomes. This paragraph by Ms. Marcus struck me:
And each one of those cases affects who-knows-how-many other cases!
At the end, Marcus quotes the Harvard researcher:
Here: [link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/20/judge-political-party-president-trump-marcus/|
"Elections have consequences," part infinity... Nominating judges.
This is from a 20 Feb 2024 Washington Post column by Ruth Marcus.
Ms. Marcus is responding to a judge who had written to her asking:
“Why does the media insist on identifying the president who appointed the federal judges who make a newsworthy decision?"
Apparently the judge did not know that picking judges based on party ideology goes back to the early 19th century. A simple look at the influence of those judges from the gilded age through and beyond to the administration of FDR alone would have been an eye-opener.
Turns out there is a recent evidence about the decisions by judges and their party affiliations; a research project from Harvard that suggests we have underestimated the impact of party affiliation on judicial outcomes. This paragraph by Ms. Marcus struck me:
"Had Al Gore become president in 2000 instead of George W. Bush, ...a two-term Gore presidency, and the judges he would have appointed, would have changed the outcome in about 10,000 cases over the next 20 years, including 2,500 improved outcomes for individuals in civil litigation, about 1,100 improved outcomes for private parties in civil suits against the government, about 2,500 improved outcomes for criminal defendants in criminal appeal, about 1,500 improved outcomes for immigrants in immigrations appeals and about 1,100 improved outcomes for prisoners in prisoner litigation."
And each one of those cases affects who-knows-how-many other cases!
At the end, Marcus quotes the Harvard researcher:
“It’s important to know that this effect is not just in highly controversial cases. It’s in almost all cases.”
Here: [link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/20/judge-political-party-president-trump-marcus/|
October 19, 2012
Yup! No OB/GYN's would agree . My response to Joe...
"And just what is this "modern technology and science" of which you speak?"
Let him name it. 'Cuz "Doctors want to know!"
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Aug 29, 2003, 11:25 AMNumber of posts: 7,212
