[yowzadave]

> I try to read the actual decisions, especially for Supreme Court ones, especially when I superficially disagree with the result and I very rarely end up disagreeing with the decisions.

Are you equally persuaded by the dissenting opinions? It seems likely that you’ve been fooled by a bunch of lawyers, who are smart and highly trained at making plausible-sounding arguments for whatever their clients require.

Constitutional law is political. The Supreme Court is recruited and appointed for their political loyalties, and to a large extent their decisions conform to their political alignment. To treat their arguments seriously about which side is correctly interpreting a very old, very ambiguous document can be an interesting academic exercise, but it misses the point about what they are actually doing.

[s1artibartfast]

I think it would be more accurate to say they are appointed based on their ideology than politics.

I don't think it is possible to have judges without legal ideology because it is an inherent part of the subject.