See the excerpt below from a LewRockwell.com post about how the so-called liberals on the US Supreme Court took a pro-gun stance when the conservatives did not.

His point is that the “conservative” judges have taken their doctrine of literalism to an unreasonable degree.

He makes another point that we really should prefer judges who set aside their ideology and politics when they get on the bench.

The process of judicial selection has become so politicized, it’s almost like we are defacto electing judges based on their political positions and philosophy.

I think judges see this as a threat to the integrity of the judicial system. The public sees judges as political animals rather than impartial arbiters of justice.

A Judicial Surprise by Charley Reese
Now that some conservatives are in a tizzy about federal judges, here is something for them to ponder: The liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court just took a stand in favor of gun-ownership rights, while the conservatives on the court took a stand against them.

Go figure.

At issue is the law Congress wrote that says a person convicted of a felony “in any court” may not own a firearm. A fellow from Pennsylvania was charged with perjury and with illegal ownership of two handguns because he had answered “no” to the felony-conviction question. Turns out he had served time in Japan for a weapons-law violation.

So the question before the court was whether the phrase “in any court” meant in any court in the U.S. or in any court anywhere in the world. Quite sensibly, the liberals on the court ruled that since it was an American Congress that wrote an American law applicable to American citizens, then logically “any court” meant any American court.

The conservatives %u2013 Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas %u2013 took literalism to the ridiculous extreme and said that Congress meant any court in the world.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority that included Sandra Day O’Connor, John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said that to include foreign convictions would be unfair, since foreign courts do not follow American procedures in regard to a defendant’s rights. Amen. Witness the kangaroo courts in many of the world’s dictatorships, such as Cuba.