NYT Discovers Trump Appointed Judges Who Agreed With Him
The NYT breathlessly reports that Trump's 'superstar' appellate judges have sided with him 133 to 12. While framed as a scandal, this is less a Watergate and more a basic understanding of judicial appointments. Presidents appoint judges reflecting their legal worldview. President Obama sought out liberal-leaning judges; President Trump sought out originalists, many of whom previously served in
conservative legal groups or the Federalist Society – organizations explicitly designed to promote conservative legal principles. To act surprised that judges selected for their specific judicial philosophy would then, astonishingly, apply that philosophy to cases involving their appointer, betrays a rather selective amnesia regarding how the judiciary functions in the U.S. One might wonder if the
Times believes presidential judicial appointments should be a blind draw from the national bar association. Or perhaps, they find judges agreeing with the President who appointed them to be problematic only when that President isn't to their liking. This isn't groundbreaking journalism; it's confirmation that the system works as intended for the executive branch, regardless of who is in power. The
real story isn't that judges Trump picked ruled for Trump; it’s the selective outrage at this entirely predictable outcome, depending on the political winds.