you: “we don't vote for Supreme Court justices… There's no…electoral…pressure on a justice[‘s] motivations…” zzleeper: “Are you naive…? Republicans have lists

you: “we don't vote for Supreme Court justices… There's no…electoral…pressure on a justice[‘s] motivations…” zzleeper: “Are you naive…? Republicans have lists of candidates for justices…they have deemed…anti roe-vs-wade” you: “If I'm naive, please explain” This is where you lost the point, and where I explained your naïveté, an explanation you ignored in your response to me. Your last two paragraphs consist of speculative ad hominem (judging by your profile, we have similar life circumstances, and I have many conservatives in my “bubble” ie family members) followed by a hypocritical self defense. We don’t know anything about each other outside of what we’ve said here. I’m simply calling it like I see it: you: “Why [wouldn’t Thomas change his mind once he is appointed], if he's now free to act as he pleases?…what's to stop him doing as he thinks is right…?” The obvious answer is that he was appointed precisely because it was expected he would act the way he has, because what he believes is right is fully aligned with who appointed him, as are the three most recent appointees. You want to point out exceptions like Roberts, but those merely prove the rule from my original explanation.