Golmer's Blog

This is a simple question, and all one has to do is look at the job position. Supreme Court Justices are nominated to a lifetime position. They are unassailable in their duties as long as they follow the constitution and do the job they are appointed to. It is a lifetime position because it is supposed to be Apolitical. I.e. COMPLETELY without POLITICS. The Judiciary does not work for and ought not answer to the political machinations of the people. They ONLY work for the constitution - period.

What is that job? It is very simple. The judge is there to decide whether or not a particular law or matter brought before the court is constitutional. If it is constitutional, they can affirm the matter. If it is not constitutional, they can reject the matter. They ought not have anything to do with making any other decisions, including whether or not a decision is popular with the public or the electorate.

An individual judge’s religious or political leanings ought have absolutely nothing to do with their decisions. For instance, a conservative judge might be personally against abortion, or for prayer in school, or against gay marriage. A liberal judge might have personal reservations about environmental policy, imminent domain, gay marriage, or nationalization of banks. But in the end, if he or she is doing their JOB as it is intended, must only answer whether or not the promotion or proscription of such matters is constitutional - not whether their own particular religious dogma allows it or proscribes it. 

The founders, I believe, never intended for a bipolar judiciary any more than they intended a bipolar congress. 

The only test, in my opinion, in advice and consent hearings, is whether or not an individual justice candidate can set aside his or her own personal dogma and perform the job of apolitically applying the constitution to decide whether a matter is constitutional. Period.