Donald Trump hit judges ideological gap correct

Trump was furious last week by US District Judge Jon S. Tigar in California, which blocked the president's harsh approach to immigrants living illegally in the United States who unlawfully abused the asylum system. Trump called him an "Obama Judge" and criticized the 9th judicial circuit, which covers federal courts on the west coast of the country, claiming he would not get a fair shake.

This provoked an unconventional reaction by Chief Justice Roberts, who insisted that the judiciary is independent and does not divide along presidential lines.

"We do not have Obama judges, Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges who do their best to make an equal right to those who appear before them. This independent justice is something for which we should all be grateful, "said the Chief Justice in a statement issued by the Supreme Court.

The Times' analysis shows, however, that there is a clear break between judicial decisions depending on which president made the appointment. And Chief Justice Roberts is one of them.

In the travel ban case, when the courts ruled on Mr. Trump's current third version, the divisions were clear. Of the 27 judges who rendered or joined decisions at the district, circuit or Supreme Court level, 19 were appointed by Democrats. Each of them has spoken out against the ban.

Meanwhile, the eight Republican candidates supported the president's prohibition powers, including Chief Justice Roberts, who drafted the majority opinion for the court, which was effectively split at 5-4 along the lines. of nomination to the presidency.

Cases involving the laws of sanctuary towns are an exception. Judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans have declared the Trump administration's attempts to crack down on jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with deportations.

Cases involving the Deferred Action program for Obama-era child arrivals, which allows immigrants who have come illegally to the United States to have children in the country, are mixed. Most Republican judges are on the side of the Trump administration, but a judge appointed by President George W. Bush is voting against the current government.

And the political demarcation line is back in the case involving immigrant teenagers who were illegally in the United States and placed in federal custody, demanding that the government facilitate their abortions. All the judges appointed by the Democrats voted in favor of the immigrant teenagers, while all the GOP appointees took the side of the Trump administration.

"No serious observer doubts that there are ideological differences between the judges that influence decision-making in certain critical cases and that these differences are often related to the party," said the law professor of the law. George Mason University, Ilya Somin.

However, he criticized Mr. Trump's attack, saying that he did not see evidence of bias and that the president had become accustomed to attacking the legitimacy of judicial review.

"Trump's comments may have been less controversial if they were not part of a long series of inappropriate attacks on the justice system," Somin said. "Previous presidents have sometimes made dubious statements about the court's behavior. [such as President] Obama's notorious attack on Citizens United during the state of the Union, but it is unusual for Trump to do so with such frequency. "

This attack of Mr. Obama in 2010 was striking.

During his State of the Union address in 2010, he crushed Supreme Court justices over a decision made a few days earlier on campaign financing. In response, Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., appointed to court by Mr. Bush – and a candidate nominated by Mr. Obama, tried to filibuster as senator – could be seen by train to pronounce the words "False".

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley said on Twitter last week that Chief Justice Roberts did not reprimand Obama for his attack in person.

Somin said ideological divisions between judges often say something about the merits of arguments.

"When judges on one side of the political spectrum are unified on one issue and those on the other on an administrative policy, it probably means that the position of the administration is weak – as in the cases of city-shrines, where GOP and Democracy the appointed judges have almost consistently pronounced against Trump – or rely on arguments that only appeal to one side of the ideological divide, " he said, citing the parking stop forbidden.

Charles Gardner Geyh, a researcher in judicial ethics and independence at Indiana University's Maurer School of Law, said that ideology has a subconscious effect on judges, but that it does not make them biased.

"The data shows that judges take the law very seriously and that in relatively simple and simple cases where the law and the facts are fairly clear (which is most often the case), judges will get the same result. regardless of their partisan background, "he said. in an email. "It is understandable that the media do not focus on the easy cases – which are rarely deserving of information – but on controversial cases, which are often controversial because the facts or the law are uncertain."

In these cases, he stated that what he called "the margins where a legal gap exists", the ideology of judges can influence their approach to the cause.

"The best evidence suggests that ideologically motivated reasoning at the margins is subconscious, which helps explain why the leader [justice] is absolutely right that judges do not consider themselves Obama judges or Trump judges, "he said.

He warned that things could go wrong if the judges are chosen for their partisan tendencies, and the public begins to doubt the independence of the judges.

"Which, I suppose, is the reason why Chief Justice Roberts took the unprecedented step of speaking," he said.