[AZLiberty]

... Now, as you point out, four of the members are left-wing idiots -- and four others seem to be partisan right-wingers ...

The problem is that people -- apparently even you -- interpret belief in the Constitution as being partisan right-wing behavior.

To a first approximation, the Supreme Court currently consists of four Constitutionalists, four anti-Constitutionalists, and one who joined the second group last year.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

“The problem is that people — apparently even you — interpret belief in the Constitution as being partisan right-wing behavior.”

Almost everyone on this board seems to agree that there are 4 left-wing partisans, who make their rulings on the basis of a partisan political calculus. Left wingers adore them.

There are four other justices, who reliably make rulings that right-wingers like. Perhaps, they are all strict constructionists, and make their rulings without any thought of the political issues. If so, why is it so easy to predict what their rulings are going to be, simply on the basis of the partisan divisions in the political realm?

Roberts stands apart, because his rulings aren’t easily predicted on the basis of a political analysis alone. That’s as it should be — constitutional law isn’t easy, otherwise they could just randomly select panels of 9 citizens to hear each case; like they do with juries in ordinary trials.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

I've been reflecting on your comment, since my reply above and would like to run another possibility by you. First, let me remind you that I actually said "seem to be partisan right-wingers ...."

Adherents of "right wing" of U.S. politics are philosophically aligned with the principles embedded in the U.S. Constitution. Rabid left-wingers insist on the "living-document" doctrine, because they share little philosophical ground with the Constitution as actually written. Since they can't get the written Constitution they want through the prescribed amendment process; they cling to the "living document" doctrine, and count on like-minded Justices to don their magic glasses, and read what they want to see between the lines.

Therefore, a strict constructionist will naturally seem* to be philosophically aligned with the "right wing" -- but, that's not being partisan. Partisan politics are very different from pure political philosophy. The calculus of realpolitik muddies the political philosophy. The Democrats have cobbled together a coalition based on identity politics, and class warfare (amongst other things). Some Democrats are actually "liberals" (in the real sense of the word), others are Marxists, others are just thugs and shake-down artists. On the right, I give you RINOs.

* By "seem to be" I mean that a strict constructionist would set aside his or own personal political philosophy, and base his rulings entirely on the law, as written. Even if that Jurist were a Marxist, he would thus "seem" to be a right winger, simply because today's right wing is more in tune with the Constitution.