I wasn't speaking to this specific dispute either. In legal disputes there's only two ways they can rule - for one side or the other. So if judges appointed by both sides are not ruling based on an honest reading of the constitution then that means there is no constitutionally correct decision - a logical absurdity.
If the judges appointed by both parties all ruled the same then you might have a point, but that doesn't seem to be what you're saying. You seem to be saying both sides are ruling incorrectly even when they're in opposition, because they're all appointed by the same elite, or something. Again a logical absurdity.
You are too locked into this "everyone except Ron Paul is the same" template.