I wonder which is really more problematic, that "a wise, Latina woman" might come to a better conclusion than a white male or that pretty much every decision made by the Supreme Court for centuries has been based on the judgment of wealthy, white, Anglo, Protestant men.
Not much of a contest to me.
Why is it that people elected to the most selective office in the land seem to believe that someone with a conspicuous background - and keep in mind that it's really only conspicuous held against the homogeneous status quo - would somehow base every single decision on that background? Are they really that stupid or bigoted?
One would hope that some of those questions were purely to placate influential but ignorant constituents and that the Senator, behind closed doors, is thinking "I can't believe I have to say things like that to keep my job."
Of course when the question is one about the merits, a judge will decide on the merits. Are they really asking if someone who is credentialed appropriately for the Supreme Court will decide to lump the law to favor one group or another?
And what's the problem with empathy? What's the problem with making a decision based on who you are? Not all legal decisions are strictly about the merits. Some are about reasonableness or a balancing test about who is harmed more. Why wouldn't we want someone with foundation or a breadth and depth of empathy to be the person making this judgment? Are we to believe that the only acceptable form of education on and relationship to an issue is to have absolutely no history or stake and to learn about it secondhand from research? How can anyone ever come to complete understanding in that way?
I'll be glad to have wealthy, white, Anglo, Protestant men on the court to relate to the wealthy, white, Anglo, Protestant issues, and at the same time I'll be glad to have a wise Latina woman on the court to relate to less wealthy, white, Anglo, Protestant issues. Diversity on the high court - in all the courts - is something to be embraced, not feared.
Senator Sessions today asked "If you had to go to court, what kind of judge would you want?" It's pretty clear what he wants. I hope it isn't the view shared by the majority on the committee.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Which is More of a Problem?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
unfortunately i did not catch as much of the coverage as i would have liked, but i had a couple thoughts pertinent to your post in the little bit i did:
-first, i suspect that the racist undertones coming from the gop questions are not accidental and that perhaps sessions was picked to lead the charge as he's already basically come out as a bigot, so he's got nothing to lose
-that said, the brief exchange i saw was the discussion the bias she supposedly admitted with the "wise latina" comment as well as the empathy ones. i'm disappointed that sotomayor did some walking back of those statements: especially as her confirmation seems to be almost guaranteed i think she would have done better to stand by her statements and call out sessions on his flawed conceptions of empathy and objectivity.
-whether or not sessions actually believes this (and i think he may) he acts as if knows "true objectivity" is an attainable goal: what sotomayor, i think, has been saying is not that SHE is not able to be objective, but that no person is able to be fully objective and that the idea of objectivity will always be relative. if she had simply reframed the argument in these terms i think it would have looked much better for her than her apology for mis-speaking.
-this idea that there is a thing such as true objectivity fits in well with a piece by paul rosenberg i read the other day. he's been making a lot of references recently to robert kegan's equilibrium stages of psychological development, which seems like an interesting framework for interpreting behaviors:
"One thing that I see in this is my oft-referred to dividing line between Robert Keegan's [sic] Level 3 and Level 4 of cognitive development. At Level 3, one's self is defined in terms of the roles and relationships of the surrounding society. It is impossible to really question these, although they may feel very uncomfortable, because one is actually embedded in them, and can't separate oneself enough to gain a critical perspective on them.
This is the typical level of adult functioning in a traditional, pre-modern society. And it's a natural facet of this condition that one cannot clearly see, much less critique and struggle against the power systems operating through the society that in turn defines the very nature of oneself. "
if one is unable to disassociate himself from society at large it would make sense to believe that there is such a thing as absolute objectivity but that it's possessed exclusively by those who agree with you. anyone who bases her decisions on a different set of values and experiences, in this context, is biased against you. From this viewpoint the attacks against both empathy and "wise latina" start to make more sense
full text of the rosenberg piece is here: http://openleft.com/diary/14147/misreading-history-while-trying-to-make-itachievement-narratives-and-obamas-limitations
Post a Comment