Possibly, one could agree to different principles of different political groups. In such cases, I guess we just go with the ones that 'weigh' more than others if one is really forced to choose sides, else we could be comfortable with our 'non-voting' status of immigrant and simply be a critical observer without a need for or offer of a label. I think lawyers are more driven by specifics of a case relavant to contemporary time and situation rather than deep philosophical quest to carry-out/project their ideological slant into legal practice. But, legally there is no conflict if a lawyer believes in conservative agenda and wants to practice and specialize that within a legal framework. Judges on the other hand are ideally expected to be 'neutral', at least when judging a case or interpreting the constitution. But, in realistic terms, do you really think a person can be so objective and logical to a point so as not to affect the merit ofa case by their ideological slant to certain extent, especially when one is appointed by administration/president who blatently announce their ideological/philosophical preference or platform? I am kind of skeptical, aren't you?