There are no conservative Justices

Over at The American Thinker today, Tom Trinko has a piece on the role of the judiciary, and in particular of the Supreme Court entitled There Are No Conservative Judges. Trinko raises the point that if a judge is doing his job as intended, then it doesn't matter whether a given judge's personal philosophy is conservative or liberal, because eh will be applying the law as written, not as he wishes it had been written, to the case.  Thus, while there can be Leftist judges, who will put a Leftist spin on the written law, and even make their own law, there can be no "conservative" judges, unless one wants to define "conservative" as following the law.

The role of the judiciary is not to solve problems or decide what's "best" for the country, but rather see how the words of the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the president combined with the intent behind those words as defined by the discussions leading up to the passing of each law apply to a given case.

As such, there is no room for an ideological spectrum because the court's purpose is only to decide based on reason and logic what the lawmakers intended. The Court is not empowered by the people through the Constitution to decide what the solutions should be and then impose those solutions on the people.

Essentially, in politics, we have lots of Captain Kirks, and in the judiciary, we should have only Spocks. Hence, to talk of conservative or liberal judges doesn't make sense. Rather, we should talk about honest or dishonest judges.

The emphasis is mine.  We have been too nice in talking about activist judges,  We should have been speaking this way all along, because that is the truth.  These judges are not merely activist, they actually have betrayed their purpose under the Constitution,

Interestingly, this now brings up yet another link in the idea of a "living" Constitution that the dishonest judges have imposed: the principle of stare decisis Stare decisis comes from the common law, where if a preceding decision was made in a case with similar facts then the judge should find similarly for the present case also. Note, though, that this does not apply to statutory law. Statutory law is that which has been passed by a legislature and signed by an executive. Thus, the actual words of the law are there to consult, and it is possible to read the words recorded as the law was being debated.  Thus the law itself, not the precedents, should govern in deciding statutory laws.

But stare decisis is an issue that comes up during Senate hearings for confirmation of Justices, because the left is at pains to preserve the activist readings of the Constitution rather than have the original meanings of the Constitution deciding cases.  If Originalists would have been in charge, Roe v Wade and Obergefell would have never come before the Court because these do not fall within the scope of the Federal Constitution. These would instead have been decided at the State level. The Leftist Senators bring this up because they want to convince you that the issues decided in these famous cases are now "settled law." They hope you do not realize that the decisions were made up out of thin air, with no Constitutional basis whatsoever. Indeed, these cases were decided by dishonest judges.

Let us hope that Trump appoints a strong Originalist Justice, and that Senate is unable to block him or her.