If you happened to be up before six o’clock this morning and watching CNN you saw, to the surprise of nobody, the continuation of the endless analysis and discussion of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s expected confirmation later today. Near the top of the hour, CNN host George Howell threw it over to CNN legal analyst Areva Martin. Howell, operating under the assumption that Kavanaugh will almost certainly be confirmed, asked the legal analyst to break down what the possible impact might be on upcoming cases the court will handle.

If you were expecting any sort of unbiased example of pending cases which might be closely divided you were about to be sorely disappointed. Martin launched into a scenario based on gerrymandering cases, frequently brought by Democrats challenging district maps drawn up by state Republican parties. She then reminded viewers of Kavanaugh’s emotional testimony after Christine Blasey Ford addressed the committee. She went on to ask if Kavanaugh believes that the witch hunt against him was organized by Democratic operatives, can he judge gerrymandering cases brought by state Democratic parties fairly? Let’s go to the video. It starts at this point in the conversation and only runs for a few minutes.

From there, unprompted by the host, Martin spins off into an explanation of how nobody can force a Supreme Court Justice to recuse themselves. But would Kavanaugh be willing to do it? It’s a fairly remarkable position to take, even in the fractured partisan battlefield of 2018. In the vast majority of cases the court hears, there will be one side or the other supported by the Democrats and Republicans. The gerrymandering issue is only one small piece of that much larger puzzle. Whether it’s abortion, gun rights, Title IX, Obamacare or immigration, there’s an obvious conservative and liberal “side” in the battle.

So what Areva Martin is suggesting is that because of his exclamations aimed specifically at Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, Brett Kavanaugh should sit out virtually every case coming before the court. She concludes by repeating the Democratic talking point we’ve heard from the beginning, suggesting that there should be “an asterisk” next to every case that Kavanaugh votes on in a 5-4 decision.

Was this supposed to be a “legal analysis” or a partisan broadside? It’s understandable when CNN has on a member of the DNC or RNC to comment and they wind up spewing party talking points. That’s pretty much their job. But it seems as if the job title of “legal analyst” has little meaning these days. Of course, when you do a bit of checking into Martin’s background you quickly discover that she’s hardly a neutral figure in the nation’s political wars. Particularly when it comes to Brett Kavanaugh, check out these recent tweets from Martin.

As #BrettKavanuagh moves closer to being confirmed despite the thousands of law professors, judges & experts who say he is unfit, will GOP Senators who vote yes pay a hefty price at the ballot box for confirming him to the Sup Court? My take on @HLN and @CNN throughout the day. — Areva Martin, Esq. (@ArevaMartin) October 5, 2018

Bravo #LisaMurkowski on your no vote on #BrettKavanaugh We needed a GOP Senator to step up & put Country over partisan politics. Too bad #JeffFlake #SusanCollins #JoeManchin didn’t have the courage to stand up for sex assault victims and say no to an intemperate, unfit Kavanaugh — Areva Martin, Esq. (@ArevaMartin) October 5, 2018

In addition to peppering her Twitter feed with Democratic talking points, check out the text of a speech she gave opposing Kavanaugh on September 7th. This was the final day of Kavanaugh’s initial confirmation hearings, five days before Feinstein would send Ford’s confidential letter to the FBI and nine days before the rest of the world would even learn her name. And she was already sounding the alarm about how horrible Kavanaugh would be as a Supreme Court Associate Justice.

CNN is free to hire who they like and Areva Martin is certainly entitled to her opinions. But if they’re going to keep using her in this capacity, shouldn’t they drop the title of “legal analyst” and simply change it to “Democratic strategist?”