[lagichikool]

"Here's a very simple rule of thumb: If the judges' opinions happen to divide along party lines, they are by definition partisan."

Very simple and very wrong.

Yes, partisan politicians appoint judges with legal principles that they favor but that doesn't make the judges themselves partisan.

Trump's SCOTUS appointees have all decided cases in ways that were distinctly not partisan, based on their legal principles and not any kind of party loyalty.

Partisan people (like yourself, presumably) don't even notice these decisions or try to downplay them. This is hyper partisanship itself and it's toxic to a democracy.

[yencabulator]

The justifications don't matter; if the opinions are divided on party lines it's inherently partisan. You seem to be convinced that "one side is right", I'm saying if you can look at the rulings and see the opinions coincide with party boundaries clearly politics are involved.

[lagichikool]

In no way did I imply that "one side is right" because I don't believe either side has a monopoly on being correct.

Because laws often have room for interpretation, conservative justices tend to decide cases in ways that the conservative Republican Party agrees with. And liberal justices tend to decide cases in ways that the liberal Democratic Party agrees with.

But both conservative and liberal justices very often decide cases in ways that go against their own personal views. The Supreme Court judges that Trump appointed have done this multiple times.