(Not sure if this should be on the Law.SE. I'm guessing the answer is more political than legal, hence I'm asking it here.)
WILMINGTON, Del. (AP) — A difficult political atmosphere for President Joe Biden may have become even more treacherous with the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse.
Biden was already facing sliding poll numbers with an electorate worn down by the coronavirus pandemic and increasing inflation. Now, the president finds himself caught between outraged Democrats — some of whom were already stewing over Biden’s inability to land police reform and voting rights legislation — and Republicans looking to use the Rittenhouse case to exploit the national divide over matters of grievance and race.
[Biden] responded carefully following Friday’s verdict, expressing respect for the jury’s decision. He later added in a written statement that, like many Americans, he was “angry and concerned” with the jury acquittal of Rittenhouse.
This makes no sense to me because these issues don't seem to have any relevance with the case. The article spends almost no time discussing the facts of the case or the law and how the jury interpreted the law, which makes it sound like they just don't like the verdict. In other words by taking issue with the verdict (but not the law/facts of the case) they are indirectly accusing the jury of bias. But if that is the case, then surely there are legal protections in place: one can request a juror recuse. Besides, the time to complain about that would be before the verdict, not after.
The same issue has showed up even in the US Senate, where the decision to appoint Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court focused on all sorts of issues except the one that seems most relevant: whether or not she is capable of doing the job (i.e. whether she has the legal credentials / health / language skills / etc.).
It feels like the US perceives the law as "Republican" or "Democrat", and whenever the verdict goes against one's desires, it is something one's political party needs to address. That's even though the law is a priori apolitical and Ex post-facto laws are prohibited in the US.
I do not understand this. Why do some people in the US perceive the law as political? Why is it that, in situations like the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict, the focus never seems to be on whether the evidence to meet the legal standard of proof was present, or whether the law needs to be changed?