Which Law do they teach?

Why is it that people just blindly accept political bias in the courts?

It doesn't appear that most people have any issue with judges basing their rulings biased by their political beliefs, except when the ruling goes against their political views. I have yet to see anyone who objects to judges allowing their personal political views biasing their rulings. They get upset based on the political divide of the Supreme Court, but it is about the number of justices which are in their political gang. They want the rulings to go how they FEEL, not based on the laws and the Constitution.

During his confirmation hearing, Gorsuch stated that a judge needs to follow the law to where it takes it, regardless of whether the judge likes it or not. It has been said that rbg would make her decision and then work back from there. Regardless of your political view, which one makes more sense? Which one is the way it should be? Which method do you think is the correct way to decide a case?

This leads to the question of which law do law schools teach? Do they allow their political bias to push that on law students? Those students might some day become a judge and then perhaps a Justice on the Supreme Court. Do they teach to make your decision and then work back to justify it or do they teach to follow the law to where it leads? If they teach to follow the law to where it leads, then why do some violate that? How much bias do law schools allow or push?

If the political bias of a judge affects their rulings, as the Supreme Court shows, then shouldn't the judges be required to disclose their political bias?

The real question is how do we prevent judges from abusing their postions by allowing their political bias to affect their rulings?