The "New" Supreme Court

I've been purposely holding off commenting on the selections of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the high court -- mostly because I wanted to see how the process played out. The "vetting" process by the Senate is badly flawed. The fact of the matter is, I'm most interested in knowing how a particular judge intereprets the law -- not in their personal politics. As a matter of course, most judges put their personal beliefs aside in reaching a decision on a case, and there was clearly no evidence that either Justice Roberts or Justice Alito would use their new role to advance private political agendas. While a judge's interpretation of an unprecedented case may be informed by their background, most judges who make it to courts of appeal or the federal bench at all are solid jurists who apply the law, not their opinions to the case. This is why the Republicans missed badly on Justices Kennedy and Souter, and why the Democrats made themselves look like fools when they spent their time pontificating during the confirmation hearings of the new Justices -- they failed to fully appreciate (or care) that candidates for the highest bench in the land are by and large going to interpret the law as it exists -- not as they wish it to be. Legislating from the bench is the quickest way to stall your career as a judge (Justice Scalia being the obvious exception). So while it's way too early to uncover any trends from Justices Roberts and Alito, I'm not too concerned that they'll be listening to a political party rather than the Constitution in deciding cases. They seem much more pragmatic than dogmatic.