I can be conscious of you being corrupt without focusing purely on that. You can be conscious of my being corrupt without focusing purely on that. We can be conscious of corruption in politicians without focusing purely on that. We can be gracious and focus on some of the good that is done, as well.
They have to do good to make themselves look good.
You first have to be conscious of the fact that every member of Congress is a multi-millionaire.
After AOC entered the office and took an uncontested seat then SotH Nancy Pelosi said could have been won by a glass of water,AOC sponsored a cost of living pay raise for all members.
A former bartender now making well over $100 salary per anum wanted more.
No one signed to co-sponsor.
Because she was a freshman in Congress , Pelosi had to accompany her to the press conference where AOC presumed to defend her bill.
Afterward, as both women departed the dias and began to return tothe chamber, with AOC still hot mic'd, Pelosi leaned in toward her and was heard saying, "That's not how we make our money!"
Now,all these years later, AOC knows how they make their money.
Because she's very rich.
That is assuming that *all* political agendas are evil. They aren't.
Agree to disagree.
Example.
Free the slaves!
Wonderful?
Afterward, the Jim Crow law and other segregation legislation, passed into law. Slavery, still.
Slaves were set free before women were made free to vote.
Now, all races are indentured servants.
Because the 16th amendment made slaves of us all.
The 14th amendment was cited and taken all the way to SCOTUS as the gay agenda pursued "marriage equality".
They won! And now,they can adopt or hire surrogates,so to bring children into their lives.
Now, if you refuse to compromise to the newspeak of the new America that legally defends and upholds what God labels abomination, you are the bigot.
And may suffer legal and civil consequences.
Voting conservative is taking a political position.
Yes.
That isn't particularly impartiality.
A Conservative Jurist , serving from any bench in America,cannot ethically nor legally rule according to personal partisan prejudice.
That is preferring a conservative position in matters of rendering justice.
Illegal and unethical.
Impartial,is the rule.
By contrast, liberal positions in matters of justice may involve discounting the reality of sin and assuming that criminals are as they are not because of an "evil" in them, but only because of some kind of societal deprivation, eg economic deprivation. Rendering a liberal judgment, in this regard, is less partiality than philosophical.
If one is a Jurist,it is not allowed under the rules.
Thomas has a more "Christian" outlook, I believe. He is a Catholic, I believe.
Thomas identifies as a devout Roman Catholic.
Personal religious values cannot influence any Jurist when serving in any court in America.
Politicians, depending on their political philosophy, can impose strict controls or very lax controls in matters like environmentalism, finance.
Law makers make law but they cannot break the law in order to draft new law.
No politician nor court can actually legislate morality.
The first amendment of the U.S Constitution and the separation clause language in the USC insure no court nor Congress can violate nor vacate the first amendment.
I favor more strict controls on morality/religious philosophy
You should become an ex-pat.
and more lax controls on business/finance.
Laissez-faire (French for,let it be) Economics?
Of course, there has to be guardrails on everything, including monopolies and criminal behavior.
Of course.
Subways. Sure. Let's ignore what the government was doing to the Soviet people. 
