I have no legal training, but I do occasionally ponder questions that require it. In the case of the current Supreme Court, I wonder whether the appointed Justices are truly behaving as justices or simply as attorneys. Are they applying a fair and unbiased reading of the law/constitution in a manner that furthers the good of the society and the rights of its citizens or are they simply serving a particular ideology or political perspective? If they are doing the latter, then they are just attorneys rather than justices.
The obligation of an attorney is to represent his client effectively so that the client can prevail in a legal contest. The validity of the attorney’s legal arguments in furthering his client’s goals is secondary to achieving those goals. Whether an attorney is representing a serial killer or Donald Trump, the primary concern is prevailing in the courtroom rather than “finding the truth.” The latter is the heavy burden of a jury and its judge. One older fellow who was a judge who tried medical malpractice cases (civil rather than criminal law) told me once that the labor of his court was to settle disputes rather than to find the truth. I imagine that both are difficult chores.
I’m pondering this distinction tonight and finding myself leaning toward the notion that the conservative members of today’s SCOTUS are lawyers first and foremost. They are on the court to further a political and ideological agenda – the truth be damned, the validity of their legal arguments be damned, the good of the society and the rights of its citizens be damned, and justice itself be damned. They are there to serve the goals of their client – the Republican Party.