By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Biden surpassed President Trump’s number of judicial appointments, reaching 235 confirmations. This includes one Supreme Court justice, numerous appeals and district court judges, and appointments to the U.S. Court of International Trade. These lifetime appointments aim to safeguard Biden’s policy legacy, particularly given Trump’s stated intentions. Democrats prioritized these confirmations before the end of their Senate majority, securing a significantly lower number of judicial vacancies for Trump to fill than Trump inherited in his first term. Despite this achievement, the shift in Senate control to Republicans raises concerns about future judicial appointments under the Trump administration.
Read the original article here
Joe Biden surpassing Donald Trump in the number of judicial appointments is a significant development, sparking considerable debate and highlighting the intensely partisan nature of contemporary American politics. It’s easy to see why this is newsworthy; the sheer number of appointments reflects a concerted effort to shape the judiciary’s composition and direction. The fact that this is even news underscores a troubling reality: the current system encourages a race to install as many ideologically aligned judges as possible, rather than a focus on meritocratic selection. This isn’t how it’s supposed to be.
The narrative surrounding this achievement, however, is complex. While Biden’s surpassing of Trump’s number of appointments is undeniable, the significance is debatable, considering that Republicans are expected to control the Senate for at least the next four years, potentially shaping the judiciary for generations to come. The perception of the accomplishment is colored by this anticipation; many commenters see it as a pyrrhic victory, a temporary win in a larger, longer-term battle.
Some argue that the race to secure judicial appointments is inherently flawed, reflecting the breakdown of good-faith political discourse and bipartisan cooperation. The focus on filling seats with loyalists, rather than the most qualified candidates, is viewed as undermining the integrity of the judicial system. The very fact that this becomes a “horse race” highlights a significant dysfunction within American politics, one that many feel actively threatens the country’s democratic principles.
The media’s role in covering this event is also under scrutiny. While some praise their reporting for exposing the partisan responses of Republicans, others criticize the media’s historical handling of similar events, arguing that past failures have contributed to the current climate of political division. Even the framing of the story—highlighting Biden’s success—is perceived as contributing to the narrative of a zero-sum game rather than a collective effort to maintain a fair and just legal system.
Adding to the complexity is the question of strategic timing. Some question why the appointments weren’t finalized sooner, suggesting a lack of urgency or efficiency that allowed this to become a last-minute rush before a potentially hostile political environment takes over. The sheer scale of appointments, viewed through the lens of the significant financial resources expended on political campaigns over decades, leads some to see this milestone as a temporary victory—a fleeting sense of accomplishment within a much larger, more protracted struggle.
The matter is further complicated by the disparity in the significance of appointments at different levels of the judiciary. While the overall number of appointments is impressive, the potential impact of Supreme Court nominations far outweighs the significance of lower-court appointments. The long-term influence of such appointments is enormous, potentially shaping legal interpretations for decades to come. This also makes the fact that Trump will likely have more Supreme Court appointments than Biden a point of contention and concern among many.
Despite the limited impact of Biden’s achievements in the face of a potentially overwhelming Republican majority, some find a silver lining. The success of surpassing Trump’s number of appointments is viewed as a necessary symbolic victory that serves to challenge Trump’s inflated sense of accomplishment and dominance. The idea that Biden could achieve this, even temporarily, prevents Trump from claiming complete and unchallenged control, which is, in itself, deemed significant.
Ultimately, while Biden’s surpassing of Trump’s judicial appointments is a demonstrable fact, its long-term significance remains questionable and highly debated. It reveals deep-seated divisions and the breakdown of bipartisan cooperation within the American political system, highlighting the worrying trend of prioritizing partisan loyalty over merit and the integrity of the judicial system itself. The larger question is not just about the numbers, but about the trajectory of American democracy and the future health of its institutions.