Naive approach to the judiciary

Re “Bench mark,” editorial, April 12

The Times’ call for an end to partisan fighting over judicial appointments is noble but naive. Interpretation of law is always, and unavoidably, subjective because of the nature of giving meaning to texts. The judge’s personal and political values always, unavoidably, play a role. A study of all federal court decisions under the National Environmental Policy Act during 2001-2004, for example, revealed that environmentalists won 60% of the time with district judges appointed by a Democratic president but 28% of the time with judges appointed by a Republican. They won only 17% of the time with judges appointed by George W. Bush. Therefore, partisan blockage of judicial nominees in the Senate is entirely proper because we have few other ways to keep these black-robed policymakers accountable to the citizenry.

Robert Benson

Professor of Law

Loyola Law School

Los Angeles