Our Country's partisans are gross and delusional. Judges arent and were never supposed to be better or worse based on their partisan political views, they're supposed to simply be objective and interpret the Laws as written.
When we say we want a "liberal" or a "conservative" judge, we outright admit that we dont respect the objective rule of law.
When I hear that said I don't think Democrat or Republican, though they may be members of one of those parties. Liberal or conservative in the case of SCJ's refers to their views on interpreting the Constitution/Law, whether it is 'flexible' therefore amendable/updated by the court (liberal view), or whether the Constitution is the standard against which all challenged law be measured (conservative view), imho. The liberal view would legislate law/enact policy (or weigh international law) from the bench, the conservative view would interpret law for what it says. That's the theory - nothing's quite that black and white - as each can take the opposite view on occasion.
To respond to Mac's question - I think it's more about behavior in the public arena. If the Left's leadership starts foaming at the mouth and subjects the SC nominee to the same shameful treatment they subjected Bork and Thomas to - it will put Dems running for re-election in the difficult position of taking a public stand either for or against the party line.
Obama's two picks, Sotomayor (a poor choice for objectivity, imo) and Kagan (dubious objectivity based on recent union comments), for the SC - both received some Republican votes. Let's see how many Dems vote for Trumps pick.
