All Nations have a Judicial System.

All Nations have a Judicial System. Of course, not all Nations are Democratic and hence their Judicial System 'reflects' their Political Orientation. A 'Democracy' usually has a 'Constitution' and the 'Constitution' is either 'Written' or 'Unwritten'. We have a 'Written Constitution' and a hierarchy of Courts that extends from the City level up to the National Level. The Highest Court in the land is the Supreme Court of the United States; it decides what is 'Constitutional' and what is 'Unconstitutional'. It is, or should be , the 'Pinnacle of Political Objectivity'. But, is it Objective? The 'Peoples at the Bottom', a long time ago, divided into 'Democrats' and 'Republicans'? At present, and with the latest addition of a new Justice, the Court is Conservative, as opposed to Liberal, or, in different words, Republican. The Judiciary Committee examines the qualifications of the appointees and inquires into His/Her 'Objectivity' in 'Interpretive Practices'. Will the Justice follow Party ideology or The Constitution. Of course, they always say they will follow the 'Constitution'. The question becomes, will a Decision be the same if it is 'decided' or 'written' by a Democrat or a Republican? Will Party Loyalty or 'preferences' 'lean' a decision towards 'Party Ideology' as opposed to some sort of 'Objective Reasoning' solely with the 'Terms of the Constitution'? The Constitution 'constitutes us'. Is Objectivity possible in a Nation 'cleaved' by Party Ideology? Can a Justice be so conscious of his/her 'thinking processes' that 'S/He' will not 'factor-in' the 'Ideological Preferences' of the Political Party that appointed him/her to the Highest court in the Land? What about His/ Her 'Moral Character'? More of that later. Where are the Real Politicians?