[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.

[pmiller2]

And, what do you think the Federalist Society would say about that?

[kube-system]

It doesn't matter what they say -- evidence demonstrates that SCOTUS members throughout history have been consistently observed to vote with their established ideological preferences.