"This paper follows an earlier work comparing Trump's first-term judges to Bush and Obama judges based on "productivity, quality and independence," and concluding that Trump's nominees "performed as well, if not better." But every attention-seeking spectacle invites its own sequel to up to the stakes. With the benefit of a few more years of Biden judges, the authors returned to the subject with a more audacious pull quote. Instead of "as well, if not better," this time the Trump judges "dominate" Biden's."
"It's a Jordan vs. LeBron level argument elevated to academia. The authors admit the paper is intended merely to "get a conversation going about judicial performance based on objective data as opposed to more subjective assertions about judicial quality," a display of modesty violently at odds with the decision to use a word like "dominate." But sometimes you've got to channel your inner Stephen A. Smith to get traction."
"To measure productivity, we start with the total number of reported opinions by a judge: the sum of majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions. Judges aren't paid by the word. The only opinion that needs to be written is the majority opinion. Dissents - and definitely concurrences - are gratuitous. "Writing a dissent or concurrence is voluntary and takes extra effort," the authors note, mistaking "effort" with "productive effort." Unnecessary"
The short answer asserts that Trump judges continue to dominate Biden judges. An earlier comparison evaluated Trump's first-term nominees against Bush and Obama on productivity, quality, and independence, concluding Trump's nominees performed as well or better. With additional years of Biden judges, the comparison escalates, using the word 'dominate.' Productivity is measured as the total number of reported opinions: majority, concurring, and dissenting. The methodology treats dissents and concurrences as positive outputs, despite the argument that only majority opinions produce binding rulings and that dissents are voluntary and frequently gratuitous. Provocative phrasing generated social media traction.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]