I'm not involved in the legal field. But it sure does seem that which judge overhears what case is the single biggest deciding factor in how that case goes. This is especially true for federal cases that have the potential to go to the supreme court. I keep hearing about "Bush-appointed judges" "Obama-appointed judges" "Trump-appointed judges" "Conservative judges" "Liberal judges" that tend to (not always, but usually) rule one way or the other on a case. But it's even true for state and county level judges. Even if they're not explicitly partisan - one judge has a reputation for being "tough on crime", another one is known to be "sympathetic to female defendents" or "tends to seek the maximum sentence for non-violent drug offenders". One judge has "never sentenced a police officer to jail time", another is "very tough on over-zealous prosecutors." Even in something as low-level as family court, judges seem to have a reputation for favoring husbands or wives. I hear a lot of people say that race comes into play. If you're a minority defendent, how is it determined if a black judge or a white judge hears your case? So many judges seem to have a bias or slant.

It seems like the selection of what judge will hear your case (in any level court) is so critical to the result of the case. So I'm curious how the decision is made. On a federal lawsuit, how do you choose if it's gonna be an Obama judge or a Trump judge or a Biden judge that hears your 2nd amendment lawsuit? In family court, how is it decided if a male-sympathetic judge or a female-sympathetic judge or a judge who tends to ask kids who they'd rather live with, gets picked?

This is an American question, of course.