My problem is the difference between a bias and a prejudice.
You are still not addressing my point.
That line is not even coming close to addressing what I said about how a non ideological supreme court is a nonsensical idea.
I'll type slowly....
A bias is a pre-existing favor for one side of an argument over the other. It is, as you
suggest, pretty much inevitable for a politically-appointed jurist, but it is still subject
to reasoned counter-argument. While the judge in question might lean particularly to
(for example) the political Right, he (or she) might be persuaded
that a particular
control law does not unacceptably impede a citizen's 2nd Amendment rights, or that this
bit of anti-abortion law is
an unconstitutional intrusion on a woman's privacy...
A PREJUDICE... well, even if you've never taken Latin: pre + judice : prejudge....
Before the first brief has been filed, before any arguments have been presented, a majority
of the current court will have made up its mind, without any hope of its being changed, based
purely on the ideological slant of their 'patron' political party.
This just in, possibly relevant to the above topic, if not this particular branch of it:
Remember the 60s, when "the black vote" went from the Republicans (Abe Lincoln's party)
to the Democrats (JFK) ? --- NO? Well, it happened....
It's starting to look like the Dems are going to hand "the gay vote" back to the GOP.
- homophobe Dem President- pushing for gay rights, but only using one hand 'cuz
he's holding his nose with the other.
-Republicans embracing a very fiscal-minded, small-government sort of rehtoric,
while moving social issues to the back burner...
-Powerful figures in the GOP either coming out or simply taking the stance that
a person's sexuality is nobody's business but their own.... and nobody says a
word about it (not like ten or fifteen years ago...)