How many precedents did Donald Trump set

Brett Talley is 36 years old, holds a law degree from Harvard and works as an assistant manager at the US Department of Justice in Washington. A young man at the beginning of his career, you might think.

But the White House has big plans for Brett Talley. In September, President Donald Trump nominated him for a judge's office in a US federal court in Alabama. The Senate Judiciary Committee has already confirmed the appointment. If the full Senate agrees, young Mr. Talley can judge on behalf of the United States for the rest of his life. And that despite the fact that he has never participated in a real trial and the American Bar Association has classified him as "unqualified" for a judge's post. But Brett Talley has an unbeatable advantage in the eyes of the Trump administration: He is a proven conservative.

Conservative judges interpret the law to the letter

America's right-wingers like to accuse the judges in the country of trying to make politics through judgments - left politics at that. According to this point of view, decisions aimed at eliminating social grievances or protecting women's and minority rights do not arise from the legal expertise of a judge, but from the arrogant desire to bypass the elected representatives of the people in parliaments. According to the Conservatives, judges should only apply the law to the letter, regardless of changing social circumstances - and these letters, as in the case of the US Constitution, are more than 200 years old.

An example: Conservative judges interpret the right to gun ownership as an individual, absolute constitutional right that must not be curtailed. Your more liberal colleagues are more likely to weigh things up. They point out that modern weapon technology and today's social conditions make the old, literal legal conception very dangerous; that today citizens therefore also have the right to protection from weapons, not just the right to carry them. Their judgments are correspondingly different.

This dispute over the tasks and powers of judges may seem like a legal philosophical dispute. But it has very tangible political consequences. Because many social issues, from abortion to gun ownership, are not resolved by law by the paralyzed Congress, they end up in court. And then it is important what political coloring the judges have.