It's easy to say that judges should not be affected by partisan issues. What's interesting is that judges are attacked from both sides of the political spectrum. Richard is referring primarily to the revolting spectacle of the 2000 election, I believe. But "activist judges" are the bane of the Right--the WSJ is always fulminating against them--and many consider that such judges are frustrating the "will of the people" (that favorite phrase of all malcontents) by doing the bidding of the Left--in such rulings as those against 10 Commandments plaques in courthouses, and those forbidding property owners from developing their own land because an endangered species has been found on it.

#1 poster child of this these days is the Kelo decision--about eminent domain. Though in this case, while the loudmouths on the Right don't admit it, the Left doesn't like Kelo either.

But face it, lots of issues judges deal with are "party political issues". In 2000 somebody had to settle the issue of the election. It's obvious that it was settled in a blatantly political way--just as the 1800 and 1876 elections were. But it's unclear what a better approach would be--as I said, the 1800 and 1876 elections were settled by pretty seamy means--as was the 1824 election. Not all involving Supreme Court machinations.