[kube-system]

I don't think the subjectivity of a politicized situation is evidence of politically motivated subjectivity. I think it is adequately explained by the inherent subjectivity involved with human interpretation.

To illustrate: nearly everyone varies their frameworks for justification, even when the situation is clearly apolitical.

e.g. Even a mother raising a child will use these justifications frameworks interchangeably as needed. I can hear my mother now:

* "Why? Because I said so" (textualism)

* "Be nice and share with your sister" (societal effects)

* "You know what I meant" (originalism)

[pmiller2]

You have to consider as well that SCOTUS justices are lifetime political appointees. There is definitely a trend in their opinions toward the same end of the spectrum as the President who nominated them. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United...

[kube-system]

Of course. POTUS is a political position, and the process of choosing their appointees is politically motivated decision.

But political motivation does not necessarily follow the transitive property, which is part of the reason why a lifetime appointment is a good idea.

[pmiller2]

> ...political motivation does not necessarily follow the transitive property....

No, it doesn't necessarily, but there is evidence that it does in practice. That is my point.

[kube-system]

SCOTUS being constructed out of political motivation does not, in itself, make the members of SCOTUS themselves motivated by politics. Having a belief system is inherent to human nature, and SCOTUS does not select their own members. The political motivation is exclusively a part of the selection process.

That's my point.

[pmiller2]

And you are missing mine. Given that they are political appointees, and their ideology reflects that of the appointing president, it is reasonable to suspect that they, in fact, are politically motivated.

I suppose if we wanted to figure this out, we could just ask the Federalist Society what they think.

[kube-system]

It is reasonable to suspect SCOTUS hopefuls are politically motivated before appointment.

After appointment, there is nothing to be motivated for. They hold the highest possible position in their career path and political support or approval no longer bears any utility.

[marnett]

They get more liberal overtime as well. The court is partisan. Even the current. You can look at 5-4 and majority decisions and there are tons of flip flopping by different justices.

[pmiller2]

That's correct. The court is partisan and the general trend for each justice is toward the more liberal. Note, however, that in the diagrams contained in the linked wiki article, no justice who starts above 0 (the "conservative" area) ever dips below 0 into liberal territory. Conservatives stay conservative and liberals get more liberal.

[kube-system]

Having an ideological preference is not the same thing as being partisan, nor is it evidence thereof. These are different things.

Someone can be partisan and not have an ideological preference. (eg. party employees, pandering politicians)

Someone can have an ideological preference and not be partisan. (eg. religious leaders, philosophers)

If you want to demonstrate that SCOTUS members are partisan, you need demonstrate they voted for the a party's preferences instead of their own ideological preference. If you are instead demonstrating that they voted in line with their own ideological preference, you are simply pointing out that humans have belief systems.