On appeal level, Stephanos Bibas, a judge appointed in the third district in 2017, wrote a blistering decision last month rejecting the Trump campaign election challenge in Pennsylvania. Andrew L. Brasher, a 11th district judge appointed this year, wrote an opinion this month refuting the campaign’s efforts to bypass the lower federal court and destroy Georgia’s election results.
Mr. Fischman said running differently would have broken the law. “This is completely contrary to judicial culture,” he said. “They just can’t be taken seriously as a judge if they stand by Trump here.”
Judges Bibas and Brasher serve in courts that Mr. Trump has turned to the Conservative majority. While Judge Bibas was not the most controversial among the appointees, the analysis said he disagreed on a major arms rights case in which two Democrat appointees complied with the New Jersey limit on high-capacity magazines.
“The right to keep and carry weapons must be treated like the other rights listed,” he wrote. “We may not break it down and balance it based on our own sense of wise politics.”
Judge Barrett – who served in India for the seventh round until October, where there is a specific culture of agreement – also followed this pattern: more than 7 per cent against colleagues called Democracy and 2.5 times against Republican nominees, the analysis showed.
In one such case, he disagreed that a man who had confessed to the murder of his wife had been denied access to a lawyer when questioned by a judge. (He later retained his position when the case was fully considered by the judges of the seventh round.)
At the Colombian District Circuit, Judge Neomi Rao, who had just strengthened the bench last year, has already made waves. The analysis showed that he disagreed three times with four disclosed cases in which he was involved with two Democratic appointees. In June, he wrote a majority opinion instructing a lower court judge to dismiss a case against Michael T. Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser.