Judge's writing and citation practices have been under the microscope for over a century. The focus is on how political leanings influence their decisions. This isn't about judges blatantly favoring one side; it's more subtle. It's about the words they choose and the cases they reference.

The study looks at how judges' language and legal citations reflect their political leanings. It shows that judges' writing styles and citation practices have become more polarized over time. This means that judges are increasingly using language and citing cases in ways that align with their political beliefs. This trend is more pronounced in the actual text of their opinions.

But here's where it gets interesting: when judges face heightened scrutiny, like when they're on divided panels or when midterm elections are approaching, they tend to be more cautious. They increase their dissent votes but show less polarization in their writing and citation practices. It's like they're walking a fine line, trying to balance their political beliefs with the need to appear impartial.

Now, let's talk about Supreme Court hopefuls. Judges who are potential candidates for a Supreme Court promotion show greater polarization in their selection of precedents. This suggests that they might be trying to make a statement or prove their political leanings to those who might influence their promotion.

This raises some important questions. Should judges be more transparent about their political leanings? How can we ensure that their decisions are fair and impartial? And what role should politics play in judicial appointments? These are complex issues that don't have easy answers. But they're important to consider as we think about the role of judges in our society.

Judges and Their Writing: How Politics Shapes Court Decisions

Actions