kcbrown
Super Genius
- Jun 16, 2012
- 1,393
2A issues are often taken up by parties in a polarized way, but it’s an ideological matter, not partisan. Some people are Nanny Staters, and some people are more liberty minded. The justices skew towards one or the other of those world views. Partisan politicians choose them for the adherence to, or rejection of the constitution’s meaning and purpose. The party match up is a symptom, not the disease.
The party match up isn't the disease itself, but it is causal. Put another way, it is because of party politics that certain people get nominated over others in the first place.
So like it or not, nominating party is an excellent predictor of the outcome of decisions.
Given the specific role of the judiciary, it should be clear that the disease isn't that party politics results in people of different mentalities getting onto the bench, it's that it's possible for someone who rejects the Constitution's meaning and purpose to get onto the bench at all. But I, for one, know of no good solution to that.