They made it to the bench because Republicans in the Senate sidelined Democrats

In less partisan times, many of the new judges, with their polarizing paper trails and histories of fighting for Republican causes, would have lacked a clear path to confirmation because of Senate customs meant to ensure bipartisan consensus over judicial nominees.

But some of those customs have been tossed aside, allowing Republicans, who control the Senate, to get their way even when Democrats object.

Two-thirds of the new appellate judges failed to win the support of 60 senators, historically a requirement of consensus that was first jettisoned by the Democratic-controlled Senate midway through the Obama administration.

When Republicans gained the majority, they followed suit and took the custom-breaking even further. They did away with a courtesy that allowed senators to sign off on nominees for courts in their home states. That meant Mr. Trump did not have to compromise on his picks in states with a Democratic senator; about a third of his appointees did not get the signoff.

They can be disagreeable on the bench, but mostly when working with a colleague appointed by a Democrat

The Times analyzed more than 10,000 published decisions and dissents since Mr. Trump took office and found that his appointees continued to stand out after they joined the bench.

There is a culture of consensus in most appellate courts, and in the cases reviewed by The Times, judges appointed by presidents of both parties agreed with one another the vast majority of times. But when they did not, the Trump appointees made a difference.

They were notably more likely than their peers on the bench to agree with Republican appointees and to disagree with Democratic appointees — suggesting they are more consistently conservative.