My feelings may be a bit ideal, though again, reading decisions makes it apparent both how intelligent these people are and how their “wrong” decisions are still very well-justified. However, I think yours are perhaps too cynical.
For example, David Souter was appointed by Bush Sr and ended up being one of the most liberal justices on the court. Harold Blackmun, author of the majority decision in Roe v Wade, was appointed by Nixon. Ford appointed John Paul Stevens. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on the other hand, were both appointed by Clinton.
So the political leanings are not as clear-cut as you make them out to be. And there is significantly reduced pressure to toe any sort of party line after you are named to the court—that's precisely why the appointments are for life. Moreover, in order to get confirmed, it's tough for a justice to simply toe the party line. Confirmation is a 2/3 deal in the Senate, and it's extremely rare for one wing or the other to have 2/3 of the seats there. No one takes Supreme Court appointments lightly.
Even so, I think I've tempered for idealism. Idealism would say they'd come up with a perfect, fair decision, every time. I'm just saying they're not oblivious. They may have a different interpretation, they may not have a complete technical understanding, but these are not people who are oblivious. They're smart, they know how law works, and this is ultimately a debate about law, as it should be in a court. Yes, there is room for interpretation, but these are not fools, and I feel like the characterization of the Supreme Court as “oblivious” is a bit excessive in that sense.
When I tried to submit this story, I cut the word "oblivious" out of the title. Of course, someone else had beaten me, so it counted as an upvote for this copy, which uses the original title.
Anyhow, you're right that they will read the amicus briefs. But I do wish they had given them more consideration. While it's true that you can't really gauge how they'll rule from the questioning in general, statements about how they "all agree" that it would be patentable if they'd included a few more numbers are very worrisome. Yes, sometimes they'll harshly question the side they ultimately support, perhaps to see how it fares under scrutiny, but I fear that important points were not disputed at all during that exchange.
For example, David Souter was appointed by Bush Sr and ended up being one of the most liberal justices on the court. Harold Blackmun, author of the majority decision in Roe v Wade, was appointed by Nixon. Ford appointed John Paul Stevens. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on the other hand, were both appointed by Clinton.
So the political leanings are not as clear-cut as you make them out to be. And there is significantly reduced pressure to toe any sort of party line after you are named to the court—that's precisely why the appointments are for life. Moreover, in order to get confirmed, it's tough for a justice to simply toe the party line. Confirmation is a 2/3 deal in the Senate, and it's extremely rare for one wing or the other to have 2/3 of the seats there. No one takes Supreme Court appointments lightly.
Even so, I think I've tempered for idealism. Idealism would say they'd come up with a perfect, fair decision, every time. I'm just saying they're not oblivious. They may have a different interpretation, they may not have a complete technical understanding, but these are not people who are oblivious. They're smart, they know how law works, and this is ultimately a debate about law, as it should be in a court. Yes, there is room for interpretation, but these are not fools, and I feel like the characterization of the Supreme Court as “oblivious” is a bit excessive in that sense.