And you are missing mine. Given that they are political appointees, and their ideology reflects that of the appointing president, it is reasonable to suspect that they, in fact, are politically motivated.
I suppose if we wanted to figure this out, we could just ask the Federalist Society what they think.
It is reasonable to suspect SCOTUS hopefuls are politically motivated before appointment.
After appointment, there is nothing to be motivated for. They hold the highest possible position in their career path and political support or approval no longer bears any utility.
It doesn't matter what they say -- evidence demonstrates that SCOTUS members throughout history have been consistently observed to vote with their established ideological preferences.
That's correct. they vote to advance their own political agendas. Those agendas also correspond to those of the appointing President's party. That's literally the definition of "politically motivated." The available evidence thus points toward individual Justices being politically motivated. Occam's razor suggests the burden of proof falls more strongly on the opposite position.
The available evidence, and scholarly consensus, shows they vote based on their established personal ideologies. If you are claiming it is more complicated than this, Occam's Razor is on you.
I suppose if we wanted to figure this out, we could just ask the Federalist Society what they think.