In recent decades, accusations of partisanship by the U.S. judiciary have intensified. A consequence has been the erroneous framing of judges within the conventional, and some-times epithetical, political binary of liberalism and conservatism. This article argues that the application of such labels has distorted the full thrust of the complex individuals who have constituted the American judiciary and proposes reframing our perception of judges, both past and present, by seeking more viable standards for measuring judicial performance. To do so, it draws on the early twentieth-century examples of Learned and Augustus Hand of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Despite being praised as symbols of judicial independence, scholars have often framed the judges in political terms. This article draws on the Hands’ public speeches, publications, and private correspondence to argue that they adopted a non-partisan view of judging that transcended political affiliations and displayed a much deeper consideration about their roles as judges than conventional political labels suggest. By inserting greater nuance into our historical understanding of the delicate relationship between politics and law, we can yet save courts from the threat that politically charged language poses to their legitimacy.

中文翻译：

---

政治判断与司法约束：博学与奥古斯都·汉德案

近几十年来，美国司法机构对党派偏见的指责愈演愈烈。结果是在自由主义和保守主义的传统的，有时是附加的，政治二元论中错误地构建了法官。本文认为，此类标签的应用扭曲了构成美国司法机构的复杂个体的全部主旨，并建议通过寻求更可行的衡量司法绩效的标准来重塑我们对过去和现在的法官的看法。为此，它借鉴了二十世纪早期第二巡回上诉法院的 Learned 和 Augustus Hand 的例子。尽管被誉为司法独立的象征，但学者们经常用政治术语来陷害法官。本文借鉴了 Hands 的公开演讲、出版物、和私人信件争辩说，他们采用了超越政治派别的无党派判断观点，并且对他们作为法官的角色表现出比传统政治标签所暗示的更深入的考虑。通过在我们对政治与法律之间微妙关系的历史理解中加入更多细微差别，我们仍然可以使法院免受带有政治色彩的语言对其合法性构成的威胁。