Use this one weird trick to make your ideologocal opponent unfit for SCOTUS.

Not the point but nice joke attempt

this is concerning

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politi ... r_Breaking

NC's general assembly forced party designations onto supreme court candidates (previously, it'd been non-partisan)

I really don’t understand that. How can a judge be left or right leaning?
They’re there to interpret the law. Surely their personal politics should never be allowed inform their decision? I’ve never heard of conservative judges or liberal judges anywhere else? I’m pretty sure it’s totally forbidden here and in Europe

I fail to see how this is in any way positive.

I'm not a fan of democratically electing judges.


In the U.S. this typically plays out in a way that conservatives and liberals tend to interpret the Constitution differently, so there will be sometimes be cases where liberal and conservative judges rule differently on the same issue. This isn't necessarily overtly political, although sometimes it sure seems to be. At the same time, it's not something that can be "forbidden."

But that’s not interpreting the law objectively, as they should be doing with no personal moral or political bias. My pal just explained to me it really comes down to some judges view it through the constitution as exactly and originally written and others filter it andadapt it through a modern context. That explains the left/right/conservative/liberal of it all to me, but it still doesn’t make sense they’re allowed interpret personally rather than objectively.

I think the bolded is basically the point. But their job, of course, is to interpret the Constitution objectively.

Take Obamacare for example. 4 Justices believed Congress had the power to pass that law based on the powers given to them in the commerce clause. 4 others felt they weren't allowed to do so because they believe in a much stricter interpretation of the commerce clause. The 9th said Congress had the power to pass the law based on their power to tax. Of course you could make an argument that the 4 who said Congress could do it because of commerce were really just allowing it because they personally favored the policy, but I think it's usually close to impossible to untangle where one's constitutional/judicial philosophies and personal political beliefs start and end.

So that’s where being given the nod for the job by a president with personal interests or party policies comes in and rigs it for their own then right?

That whole system flat out sucks