Most Americans believe that the idea of being a judge is that you follow the law as it was written and apply it accordingly. It was the way the Founding Fathers intended the system to work. But in an age when Americans are so severely politically divided, is that what the members of America's judiciary are actually doing? Turns out, it might be what we have suspected all along.

A new audit was done recently by the legal watchdog group Bench Receipts. The group monitors actions by the judiciary, prosecutors, and sheriffs. The audit focused on rulings by federal judges who were Article III judicial appointees, and judges appointed by a president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The idea behind the study was to see if foreign-born judges ruled in favor of illegal immigrants and criminals over the safety of Americans and immigration law. 

The audit looked at 58 foreign-born judges from across the judiciary, including those from district courts and courts of appeals. But it wasn't a question of being foreign-born, thus the propensity of rulings against America-First and U.S. sovereignty policies that the study revealed, but something else that we already knew but is equally disturbing.

Most Americans assume that when presidents, whether Republican or Democrat, appoint judges, those appointees hold the same ideological bent as the president appointing them; no surprise there. But what jobs did those judges hold before they became judges? Well, also not surprising, but disturbing, is the fact that the majority of Article III judges appointed by Democrat presidents were themselves liberal warriors who worked in left-wing think tanks, social justice groups like the ACLU, or were public defenders — the kind of jobs where the law is simply a means to an end, the end being some leftist agenda item. 

Of the 58 judges the audit looked at, 43 (74.1 percent) were appointed by Democrat presidents: 28 by Biden, and 15 by Obama. Most were veterans of the ACLU, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), or Public Defender Office veterans. Those judges blocked border enforcement at an 80.1 percent rate. In contrast, 14 Trump appointees and one Bush appointee came in at 14.3 percent with anti-border rulings.  

Recommended
Elon Musk Promises Sweet, Sweet Revenge on Democrats Who Plan to 'Come After' Him Teri Christoph Justice for Shani Louk: IDF Eliminates Hamas Terrorist Seen Grinning in Barbaric Oct 7 Video Teri Christoph

A few of the names on both the pro- and anti-immigrant and crime lists are ones that might be familiar. U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee born in Trinidad, rules, 94 percent anti-border and 62 percent pro-crime. U.S. District Court Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin, born in Mexico and appointed by Biden, rules 93 percent anti-border and 63 percent pro-crime. But the worst of these is Judge Jon Tigar, born in England, and, among his pre-bench jobs, was a San Francisco public defender. He was appointed by Obama and rules against border policy 94 percent of the time and is pro-crime 65 percent. 

Then, there are what might be described as the "pro-America" judges. Ironically, they are all Trump appointees. Imagine that. A familiar name on that list is Judge Aileen Cannon, born in Colombia, and has a 10 percent anti-border, 19 percent pro-crime ruling record. Topping this list is Judge James C. Ho, born in Taiwan, who has a 5 percent anti-border, 12 percent pro-crime ruling rate.

The Bench Receipts audit brings up another question. If leftist activist judges are this biased, what happens if you find yourself in front of one of these activists and it is revealed you are a conservative? Do you get the January Sixer treatment? It is a chilling prospect.

It is clearer than ever that the left, even leftist judges, no longer feel the need to hide their agenda.