Politicians can be labeled as biased to their political party platform. Democratic politicians are beholden to the Democratic constituents who voted them into office. Republican politicians are also in hock to the Republican constituents who voted them into office. Essentially, elected politicians are duty-bound to deliver the core elements of their respective party-platforms. According to the 2022 Census of Governments: In the United States the total number of elected officials (politicians) adds up to 496,537. And the US Congress is the pinnacle of lawmaking in America.

Congress and their category of law-making by subject:

1. Criminal Laws: These define offences against the state to protect society, punish offenders, establish penalties, etc.

2. Civil Laws: These govern disputes between individuals or organizations, often providing remedies such as compensation for damages.

3. Regulatory Laws: Congress can establish rules and standards for industries or activities to ensure public safety, order and fairness.

4. Tax Laws: Congress has the authority to levy taxes on individuals, corporations or other entities to fund government operations and public services.

5. Constitutional Laws: Congress can enact laws that interpret, implement or amend the Constitution, ensuring government actions align with constitutional principles.

The congressional power concerning the fifth category of laws can be most troubling. Can the dual-partisan Congress be trusted to "interpret" the Constitution? Congress (House and Senate) holds two political parties that are diametrically opposed to the other's political platform. When it comes to constitutional principles, opposite opinions cannot be true at the same time for the same issue. The legislative branch of government is going to incur mistrust on law-making. How trustworthy can opposite opinions on law-making "align with constitutional principles?" If a truly unethical opinion eventually becomes law simply because of a sufficient majority in both houses of Congress, then either the Constitution is flawed or the law is constitutionally flawed. The legislative and executive branches of government are entirely partisan. Where is there a (somewhat) non-partisan branch of government that's supposed to be impartial when interpreting the Constitution? It's the judicial branch of government.

In a nutshell, Article III of the Constitution established the federal judiciary of the United States. The Constitution (1789) is essentially lacking in pertinent details to the function of the judiciary system. One of the first acts of Congress was to pass the Judiciary Act (1789) signed by President Washington. But the Judiciary Act was not complete in detail, neither to the scope nor breadth of the judicial branch of government. The scope and breadth of the federal judiciary was established in the landmark Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), which struck down the Judiciary Act. Marbury v. Madison is generally considered the most important case in American court history. It created Judicial Review. Which refers to the powers of the federal courts to examine civil laws and government actions to determine if they violate or contradict previous laws and state or federal constitutions. If a law is unconstitutional it can be struck down, in part or in whole, through judicial review. Although vacancies in the federal courts are filled by any present partisan-political administration, the job requirements still involve duty-bound requirements to decide cases according to the Constitution. And the Supreme Court is the pinnacle of all federal courts.

Much of this interpretational power of the Constitution by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) goes beyond the halls of Congress, the federal level. SCOTUS is continually called upon for constitutional judgment in matters of civil society, the business world and the religious sphere. Many plaintiffs appeal to SCOTUS to settle lawsuits where lower federal courts have ruled against the plaintiffs. Case in point: In the 2021 Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, SCOTUS upheld the religious rights of Catholic Social Services saying the agency's religious-based refusal to certify same-sex couples as foster families could not be the city's reasons for ending the agency's long-held foster care placement contract. SCOTUS struck down Philadelphia's non-discrimination requirements that were attempting to force CSS to let same-sex couples be foster parents. This ruling is based on the Constitution's Free Exercise Clause found in the First Amendment. The clause protects actions conducted in the public sphere on behalf of religious convictions despite government interference through unconstitutional laws.

What most people thought would never happen concerning abortion: The Supreme Court of 2022 reversed the Supreme Court of 1973 on the controversial Roe v. Wade. SCOTUS of 2022 had the chance to apply judicial review to Roe and deemed it unconstitutional. The overturning of Roe was not a direct reexamining of Roe but came indirectly from the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson's Women's Health Organization (2022). The court determined that the Constitution doesn't grant a right to abortion and upheld Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban. It was then the court had to reexamine Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) and explained that the Constitution does not grant a right to abortion because there is no explicit mention or protection of abortion rights. From Justice Samuel Alito: "Roe found that the Constitution implicitly conferred a right to an abortion, but it failed to ground its decision in text, history or precedent..." Subsequently, the abortion issue has been returned to the states' jurisdiction.

The Democrats in Congress have no recourse on the reversal of Roe. That's because the court's decision in Dobbs overturning the right to abortion was grounded in the interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, the court's decision that the Constitution itself does not include the right to abortion is final. This is why Democrats in Congress are too partisan to be trusted on matters of interpretation of the Constitution. Though it is alarming that SCOTUS of 2022 had to use judicial review of SCOTUS of 1973 to render the proper interpretation of the Constitution on abortion, while at the same time and without trying, restored the moral order of abortion on the federal level.

After the immorality of Roe v. Wade was overturned by SCOTUS in 2002, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that courts should "reconsider" rulings on contraception, same-sex relationships and same sex marriage. "In future cases we should consider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell." Thomas is referring to past SCOTUS decisions that, on a federal level, legalized serious immoral behavior. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) allowed married couples to use contraceptives to avoid pregnancies. Lawrence v. Texas (2003) struck down U.S. states' law criminalizing sodomy. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) gave same-sex couples the fundamental right to marriage. Given time, maybe Judicial Review can reverse immorality, inadvertently.

Ever since the sexual revolution of the 1960s (sex, drugs and rock and roll) morality has been in steep decline. The numbing of morals in America is at its highest level currently, with no end in sight. The onslaught of immoral laws in America can be blamed on the Overton Window. According to Joseph Overton, his window (1990s) frames the range of policies that a politician may recommend without appearing too extreme in order to gain or keep public office given the climate of public opinion at that particular time. This is evidenced by today's immoral laws: Because moral relativism has weakened traditional morals in society, little by little. And that explains the Democratic Party politicians. They don't care about their own personal convictions of morality, they want power and they must have enough votes to achieve or maintain that power.