What One Believes is a Matter of Judgement

People believe all sorts of things, some pretty fantastic and not "true", some fantastic and "true". What people believe, and the strength of that belief (conviction) are good indicators of those persons ability to make judgements in other areas of belief. But what is "judgement".
judgment is the innate ability, that a person has, in selecting facts that are relevant, from a set of facts, that would support or produce a valid conclusion. Premises, inferences, and conclusions if you will.
A lack of judgment is that the innate ability to discriminate correctly those facts is somehow corrupted so that valid conclusions are not possible.
Case in point--the astrologer versus the astronomer. The astrologer says that the gravity of far-off astral bodies influence and determine peoples lives. The astronomer contends that gravitational effects of astral bodies are so weak that the conclusion made by an astrologer could not be true, that gravitational effects by terrestrial bodies, such as an automobile going by, would be much more significant. In this case, and many other's, it is a question of picking the "right" set of facts in order to produce the "right" conclusions.
An emotional component derails many "judgments" by causing a person to "emotionally" select a set of facts to support a particular conclusion, which in many cases is pre-chosen.
If the facts are, or premises, invalid the conclusion made from them will likely be invalid. Methodology, logic, plays an important part too, but that is a subject for another time.
The conclusions that a person comes up with, and his/her choices of facts, are good indicators of a persons "innate" ability at making judgments in general; i.e., if he/she has strong convictions about a questionable belief then he/she may be side-tracked from the truth in other areas.
In most cases strong convictions reflect a person's need for emotional security. People are often "intellectually blind", unable to draw correct conclusions, because of emotional needs. If this is so, their strongly held convictions should be noted, not only for what they believe, but for why they need to believe. Seems a simple and logical observation, but we choose people to represent us, to look out for our interests, without evaluating their abilities to make rational judgments.
Take the case of Judge Alito for an example. He may be our next Supreme Court judge. He is said to be a devout Catholic. Catholics cannot freely interpret for themselves moral issues, these are determined and interpreted by the Pope and clergy.
Alito will be potentially at logger-heads with the Church regarding moral issues if he follows a "secular" course in his legal determinations. Will Alito be the "astrologer" or the "astronomer"?