Before the term ends: Judges appointed by Biden prevent Trump from changing

Just before the change of administration in the US: three federal judges appointed by the Democrats changed their retirement plans following the return of the president-elect, Donald Trump while a fourth judge was warned not to do so, the Washington Post reported.

In the federal justice system, they fear the entry of the president-elect and took a step that is considered rare when they decided to change their status, which is considered partial retirement. Senior Republicans criticized this decision, arguing that the purpose of the judges is to prevent Trump from appointing replacements according to his worldview, as he did in his first term.

Legal experts see the justices’ moves as part of a broader political movement involving the federal court system, whose judges are appointed for life and whose rulings could shape policy for many administrations.

After the election results were announced, Senate Democrats moved quickly to confirm as many of the outgoing president’s nominees as possible Joe Bidenknowing that their candidates will not be confirmed when a Republican Senate is sworn in early next year, and that Trump will start proposing candidates on his behalf. Biden’s last two appointments were confirmed on Friday, bringing him to 235 judicial appointments – one more than Trump in his first term.

On Monday, Biden vetoed the Judiciary Act, which was intended to create dozens of new judicial positions to ease the burden on the courts. The law received bipartisan support in the Senate last summer, but Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed it, and after Trump won the election they joined the Democrats in their opinion.

The American legal system has become a very significant factor in recent years, especially since Congress has difficulty making decisions and reaching agreements on critical issues, the courts intervene in the controversy surrounding abortion, same-sex marriage, gender treatments, and more. Federal judges can issue orders that affect policy, and appeals courts can be the final say on the matter.

Studies show clear differences in the rulings of judges appointed by Republicans compared to those appointed by Democrats. “In a certain way, almost every dispute ends up in court,” said Prof. Joshua Blackman a constitutional expert at South Texas College of Law in Houston, “and because of the increase in these orders that affect the entire country, a single judge, anywhere, can essentially stop a president’s plan almost indefinitely.”

The politicization of the American judicial system also continues in the confirmation process of the candidates, with members of Congress often voting according to the party line or delaying the confirmation of candidates for months. “Each nomination becomes a hard-fought battle, with Republicans and Democrats mobilizing the majority of their parties to vote almost uniformly against nominees from the opposing party,” he said. Russell Wheeler From the “Brookings” Institute.