An observation:

When did this country become so mired in partisan politics that we refer to judges — who, by the definition of their profession, are supposed to be impartial and non-partisan — as conservatives or liberals, Democrats or Republicans?

Does anyone else see this as a tremendous problem? The whole country goes on and on about "conservative judges" or "liberal judges," or "Republican judges" or "Democratic judges." But these folks are missing the point: judges are supposed to be above party politics. That's the whole point of the job! If you can actually determine whether a judge is "conservative" or "liberal," then that judge is not properly adjudicating in an impartial manner. If you can tell a judge's (or justice's) political affiliation by observing their judicial decisions and official actions, then they're not doing their job correctly.

By far, the judicial branch of our government is the one branch where it is vitally important that there be no "party politics" involved in the execution of their duties. Sure, if we had our way, party politics wouldn't be involved in the doings of the executive or legislative branches either; but since their decisions and actions are supposed to be guided by policy, it's hard to avoid the party politics. But in the judicial branch? It simply can't be permitted. Judiciaries are supposed to interpret and apply the law as it is already written, not as they would like it to be written. Judicial decisions should be so consistent across the board, no matter which judiciary delivers them, that we can almost refer to the judicial branch itself as a "political party," with its own platform and policy. A judiciary's personal feelings on any matter — whether because of political affiliation or otherwise — should be deemed quite irrelevant to how they should judge it.

Of course there are instances in which a judge is not motivated by politics, but it just so happens that many of their interpretations of law lead to decisions that one or the other party likes more often than not. That's perfectly normal, as long as the motivation isn't driven by an agenda. In stating that judges shouldn't be involved in party politics, we're talking about those judges who seem to be actively pushing forward their own partisan goals from the bench. Roy Moore is, of course, the extreme example of the wrong kind of judge.

Keep in mind, though, that the Supreme Court Justices are a special case — since their decisions can actually alter the laws they interpret and apply, they have a little leeway to behave more like legislators than do judges in other positions. However, this still doesn't excuse them from ignoring the foundations of US law in delivering their decisions.

With the upcoming miasma of media spin and party lines that will surround SCOTUS nominee John Roberts, we just wanted to invite our readers to tell us your opinions on this issue of judicial propriety. Do you agree with us? Disagree? Let us know.

Your assessment is, in my opinion, dead on. To those who would say, "But nobody's truly impartial; everyone's got a political stance and it's better to admit it than not," I would respond that when it comes to assessing factual matters, the world would be a better place if EVERYONE made a genuine effort to step back and think things through impartially. Not likely to occur, of course, but in the case of judges this approach should be THE central feature of their professional behavior. Excellent rant, guys; I wish everyone in the U.S. would read it.

I agree, politicising law enforcement and the judiciary seems totaly insane to me too.

So please pardon this question from Canukistan: why do Americans elect law enforcement officials and judges again?

I have never been able to figure out why voting for sheriffs, judges and dogcatchers ever seemed like a good idea. This strategy would seem to automatically politicise all of these positions.

Cheers,

Naked Ape

lol@"Canukistan" (from someone who spent his youth living in Wheatley, Ontario).

Truly relevant to the issue at hand and beyond. The partisanship is really getting out of hand in the US, it's revolting, and quite dangerous to rational individual thought.

"I have never been able to figure out why voting for sheriffs, judges and dogcatchers ever seemed like a good idea. This strategy would seem to automatically politicise all of these positions."

Well, if you don't elect certain officials, they must be appointed, and that appointment will come from an elected offical, so the politics remain, if one level removed.

A process one level removed from the meddling of partisan political hackery still seems better than a process that is marinaded in partisan political hackery. At least that is how it appears to me.

Cheers,

Naked Ape

Much disagreement oh apish one.

By appointing, the politician we elected gets to make the decision. So, if the politician were a right thinking person, they'd put in someone impartial, but that would mean they wouldn't be in politics. Therefore, the politicion will put someone in that agrees with their policies. Chance of judge that will be impartial, unchanged from random selection. Chance of judge disagreeing with current administration, near 0.

By electing judges the people duke it out of the political landscape. Therefore, those who disagree with the current administration might win. Chance the judge will be impartial, unchanged from random selection. Chance of judge disagreeing with current administration, well above 0, but less than 50%.

So, with elections we have a shot at judges who disagree with lawmakers, and maybe, just maybe, we end up in the middle somewhere.

That seems better than guaranteeing a clean sweep for whoever is in charge now.