U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now

[CJD]

(06-27-2019, 03:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not a fact I was unaware of.  However, Justices tend to have a mind of their own once appointed and are still bench officers who decide cases based on the Constitution, the law and legal precedent.  To dismiss any ruling simply based on the justices for or against it is actually a more partisan exercise then you accused the justices of engaging in.

They may assume the identity of non-partisanship, but they still have their own thoughts and beliefs and, sometimes, those thoughts and opinions, as well as their qualifications as a judge, are significant factors in why they were nominated.

In other words, it is my belief that a judge appointed by a pro-life president is more likely to be pro-life than a judge appointed by a pro-choice president. Just like a judge appointed by a pro-LGBT rights president is more likely to be pro-LGBT rights than a judge appointed by an anti-LGBT rights president.

I don't think recognizing the inherent biases of the human condition is any more partisan than those who are voting along their own partisan lines, whether they like to believe they are being objective or not.