Scalia had a good comment on the Supreme Court's alleged partisanship. He said: justices are selected for their distinct judicial philosophies. Is it a surprise when they vote accordingly?
IIRC, if you assess the salience of particular political issues at the time a Justice is appointed, and then look at how they vote on those issues throughout their career, they tend to be pretty consistent with the appointing administrations views on issues that were of high salience when the justice was appointed to the Court, and less consistent the lower the salience of hte issue was at the time the justices are appointed.
This tends to support the idea that justices are much more appointed for the views on high-profile issues than any kind of broad "judicial philosophy".
I agree with your characterization but I don't think that qualifies for the label "partisanship." Partisans would go with the political flow of their party.
Comments
IIRC, if you assess the salience of particular political issues at the time a Justice is appointed, and then look at how they vote on those issues throughout their career, they tend to be pretty consistent with the appointing administrations views on issues that were of high salience when the justice was appointed to the Court, and less consistent the lower the salience of hte issue was at the time the justices are appointed.
This tends to support the idea that justices are much more appointed for the views on high-profile issues than any kind of broad "judicial philosophy".
I agree with your characterization but I don't think that qualifies for the label "partisanship." Partisans would go with the political flow of their party.