06-27-2019, 04:18 PM
(06-27-2019, 04:08 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: 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.
It's interesting that your would use abortion as your example as it's a rare example of a court decision that can logically be ruled on either way. The vast majority of cases that come before the SCOTUS are not of that nature. In this limited instance I will concur with your assessment.
