> And isn't the whole point of being a judge that you're impartial, are they subtly alleging the court is partial to whatever laws are made by one of the two ma

> And isn't the whole point of being a judge that you're impartial, are they subtly alleging the court is partial to whatever laws are made by one of the two major parties or something? Federal appellate judges are typically appointed due to their association with one of the two parties and often because they have a history of rulings favoring a certain party’s ideology in lower federal or state courts. They are officially impartial but everyone working within the system recognizes there’s tilts, and the media does too. A clear example of this is that they typically time their retirement so the party that originally appointed them can replace them. I believe in some other countries the judiciary appoints their own replacements and in that case the ideology / politics of the judicial branch may diverge more from the legislative political parties.