One of the problems is that they are appointed for life, or until they choose to retire. And in theory, they aren't supposed to be interpreting law with specifically Democratic or Republican motives in mind.
Although, to be fair to them, the majority that decided this particular case were being either Democratic or Republican, they were bowing to the unholy creature that is the merged Corporatist-Tea Party.
What I mean by that is that socially, they're extreme conservatives, a la the Tea Party. In terms of supporting democratic rights for any actual human beings, they are Corporatists: the rights of business always come before the rights of humans. And when those interests merge, as they did in this case ... well, you see what happens.
no subject
Although, to be fair to them, the majority that decided this particular case were being either Democratic or Republican, they were bowing to the unholy creature that is the merged Corporatist-Tea Party.
What I mean by that is that socially, they're extreme conservatives, a la the Tea Party. In terms of supporting democratic rights for any actual human beings, they are Corporatists: the rights of business always come before the rights of humans. And when those interests merge, as they did in this case ... well, you see what happens.