 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
question
editIt looks like the composition of the panel hearing a particular case will affect its outcome, especially given the ideological differences between (say for example) a judge appointed by Obama versus a judge appointed by Trump. How do the courts ensure that the assignment of judges to cases is truly random? (Of course this question applies to both the trial and appeals level; however, it is more interesting at the appeals level because appellate decisions may be precedential. A major rule of law could be established as an artifact of the assignment of judges to a particular case; one would hope for a more frequent use of en banc decisionmaking to overcome this.) 66.82.144.143 (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- That is actually a very interesting question, and there has been some writing on the subject. I will add a section on this now. BD2412 T 05:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)