When the law is on a lawyer's side, they argue that the law is on their side. When the facts of a case are on a lawyers side, they focus on the facts. And when neither is on their side, they argue that a hidden agent somewhere within the court rigged their case to make it impossible for them to win.
If we are going to insist on electing judges, do we want them to spend their time discussing issues with voters -- or, for that matter, do we want them doing their actual job of deciding cases -- or would we prefer that they spend their time asking for campaign contributions?
The Supreme Court is likely to be confronted with two cases that will challenge whether the Court is capable of applying the same rule in cases that benefits Democrats as it does in cases that benefit Republicans.
Carvin's prediction that GOP justices can be trusted to advance GOP policies even in a case such as this one, where the arguments for doing so are weak, may in fact prove correct. Should Carvin be vindicated, however, the justices will deal a grievous self-inflicted wound to their own institution.