by Jorge Gomez • 4 minutes
President Biden and Senate Democrats are touting the confirmation of 235 judges to the federal bench, surpassing the 234 confirmed during the first Trump term.
But the number isn’t necessarily what will define Biden’s legacy on the courts. It’s the judicial philosophy and ideology of the judges he appointed. Over the past four years, the Biden administration put forth dozens of radical and controversial judicial nominees, many of whom have a dismal record on religious freedom.
First Liberty consistently warned about many who could be hostile to people of faith and religious groups. While in private practice, some of them worked for—or were endorsed by—some of the most radical groups in the country, suggesting they could be hostile to religious liberty and unconstitutionally advance a liberal policy agenda from the federal bench.
Some nominees had affiliations with anti-Semitic organizations and disparaged Christians as “bigots.” Some argued against religious liberty and houses of worship in court. Others espoused legal theories and views far outside the mainstream. There was even concern that some nominees were unqualified to serve as they appeared to struggle with basic legal questions during their confirmation hearings.
Judicial analysts question whether Biden’s nominees will have a lasting impact on the law and future precedent. In particular, experts say there is a stark difference in quality between Trump and Biden’s judicial appointees.
“Biden certainly succeeded in changing how the federal judiciary looks, in terms of the faces we see on the bench,” explains David Lat at Bloomberg Law. “But whether he managed to make changes that are more than skin-deep, in terms of appointing judges who will…make significant contributions to developing legal doctrine, remains unclear.”
“Biden’s emphasis on diversity and professional representation over clear judicial philosophies may have diluted the ideological coherence of his appointees,” writes Kaelan Deese at the Washington Examiner. “Some of them lack the well-defined philosophies of Trump’s nominees, which, in recent years, have tended to exert greater influence on the judiciary’s direction.”
Deese points to the “the widespread influence of Trump-appointed judges, many of whom are seen as top contenders for future Supreme Court vacancies.”
“Trump’s judges have quickly emerged as intellectual leaders on the bench…writing opinions that have reshaped legal debates and garnered national attention,” Deese added. “In contrast, Biden appointees have yet to establish themselves as prominent voices or generate landmark decisions.”
A research report published by the University of Virginia Law School titled “How Different Are the Trump Judges” measured the performance of Trump judges compared to judges appointed by other presidents. It found that Trump judges outperformed other judges and “dominate[d]” the top 10 lists of all areas measured, including productivity and influence.”
In contrast to Biden’s radical nominees, Trump appointed judges with some of the strongest records on religious liberty, including Judge James C. Ho to the Fifth Circuit, Judge Lawrence Van Dyke to the Ninth Circuit and Matthew Kacsmaryk to district court in Texas. All of them previously worked for and donated their time to First Liberty to defend religious freedom and represent Americans of all faiths.
Court watchers also say the Biden administration and his party will be remembered for their effort to undermine public trust in the federal courts.
“It isn’t the numbers or the faces that will define the Biden years. His most lasting mark on the judiciary will be the contempt he exhibited toward the judicial branch, and his active role in undermining public faith in it,” wrote Kimberley A. Strassel in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.
“No other modern president has shown more hostility or disregard for the judiciary and its unique role in government,” Strassel added. “In a Washington Post op-ed, the president skewered the Supreme Court as ‘not normal,’ ‘mired in a crisis of ethics,’ in need of ‘bold reforms to restore trust and accountability.’ He insisted this was necessary to “restore the public’s faith’ in the court. A faith he did more than any other modern president to undermine and destroy. That’s his record.”
“Senate Democrats have not investigated an ethical crisis at the Supreme Court so much as they have been trying to manufacture a scandal that does not bear scrutiny,” according to the Washington Examiner. “Overall approval of the Supreme Court has fallen…but that fall is entirely due to the propaganda campaign against the justices and is confined exclusively to Democratic partisans.”
The second Trump administration will have an opportunity to reverse the alarming wave of nominees seen under his predecessor, as well as the relentless attacks on the U.S. Supreme Court and America’s judicial system.
Trump recently reiterated his commitment to picking the best and most qualified people to serve on the bench. “I won the biggest mandate in 129 years. I will make my appointments of Very Qualified People in January when I am sworn in,” Trump posted on Truth Social.
“In his first term, President Trump appointed constitutionalist judges who interpret the law as written. He will do so again,” Trump-Vance transition spokesperson Brian Hughes told Fox News Digital.
“As President, I will once again appoint rock-solid conservative judges in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia and the great Clarence Thomas, who’s doing a phenomenal job,” Trump said during a speech at the National Religious Broadcasters Convention.
As a new administration and Senate prepares to take over, First Liberty will continue evaluating the record of judicial nominees and providing the facts on which ones are best qualified to serve on the federal bench. And if “court reform” efforts resurface, we will also educate national leaders and Americans about the dangers of court-packing, ending life tenure or other radical proposals to change our judicial system.
 |
|
|
