Thread by @fawfulfan

Sidenote: from now on I'm going to note which president appointed any judge who rules for or against Trump, because partisan judges shouldn't enjoy the veil of people not knowing their backgrounds.

And I think everyone reporting on federal court decisions should do the same.

https://twitter.com/fawfulfan/status/1148969473677750272

History has shown that even though federal judges are appointed for life, they are responsive to public attention because they care about their reputation as impartial arbiters of law.

The only way to check the rabid partisanship of the modern judiciary is to report it widely.

In fact, I honestly think at this point we should do the same thing for judges we do for senators and congressmen — just like the first mention of Ted Cruz in an article is followed by "(R-TX)", the first mention of John Roberts in an article should be followed by "(R-Bush 43)".

Example: yesterday, the ACA suit was heard by Judges Carolyn King (D-Carter), Jennifer Elrod (R-W. Bush) and Kurt Engelhardt (R-Trump).

Similarly, today the emoluments suit was axed by Judges Paul Niemeyer (R-H.W. Bush), Dennis Shedd (R-W. Bush) and Marvin Quattlebaum (R-Trump).

Traditional court watchers are probably going to read these words with horror, but come at me bro. This is what the judiciary is now. The Federalist Society wanted it that way and they got their wish.

We can either adjust how we talk about it to keep up, or not.