Actually, I am quite in agreement that the court should be an impartial umpire. Which is why I criticize their decisions (on an increasingly regular basis, regardless of the plaintiff or issue at hand).

It is a good debate to have. And reasonable people can disagree on the finer points of legal rulings, and I do give you that.

But stating they are an "impartial umpire?" I don't see that has been the case for a very long time. And that is both on the part of liberals and conservatives on the court. Justice Roberts and Kagan do sometimes make some efforts now and then toward that, but the others? Not to my eyes. Not at all. Just my opinion.

For long stretches in our history, SCOTUS was an impartial umpire (mostly)...and when they were, they had the trust of a large chunk of the American people. Some 20 years ago, SCOTUS had an approval rating of over 60% (across party lines). Now they have an approval rating of 41% and falling. There is a reason for that. And it is not just because people like little ole me are heckling them. ;-)