Log In | Register
10 Comments
PrintThe Supreme Court and Other Myths about Judges
News Type: Event — Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:43 PM EDT
advertisement
For two days Sonia Sotomayor has repeatedly stated the mythical mantra that all decisions made by judges are based on the law. She has had to do this while Republican senators have baited her about her "Wise Latina" remark. Again, and again she has reassured each Republican Senator that her decisions have been, and will be, based solely on the law. Did you miss that? Her decisions have been, and will be, based solely on the law. If she were to do this, then she would probably be the first judge in history to accomplish this feat.
Every human being makes decisions based on a variety of factors. The decisions that people make are ultimately based on information they believe to be true. This information is gathered through a filtering process based on people's belief systems, emotions, and a whole host of unconscious and subconscious feelings and experiences that all people possess. To assert that a judge is able to bypass to all past experience, ignore emotions and feelings, and be totally aware of all the subconscious motivations is utter nonsense. Millions of people saw the interview with Chief Justice Clarence Thomas on 60 minutes. Can anyone actually believe that this angry man who grew up with a tyrant of her grandfather does not have his decisions influenced by that experience?
During the current hearings to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, stated that in every major case Supreme Court Justice Roberts sided with the prosecution over the defendant. I'm sure that the Chief Justice could cite his reasons for each and every case, but the sheer consistency on his decision-making pattern speaks to an internal believe system that outweighs the impartiality of the law. Justice Roberts has a view of the way the world should be. The information he gathers on a cognitive basis is filtered through that worldview. To believe that all all his decisions are based solely on the Constitution, legal precedent, and total impartiality beggars the imagination.
The notion that "facts are facts" is also nonsense. I live in the South where the civil war never happened. Rather, there was a war of Northern aggression called by Southerners the War between the States. The southern conceptualization of the civil war is very much alive, and if anyone doubts it, there are many Southerners who would be more than willing to debate the issue. Belief systems structure "facts" and marshal them into a coherent view of the world that enables people to live in a society that make sense to them. Judges, and Supreme Court justices, are not immune to this process and cannot render judicial systems in isolation from the society in which they live in the believes they have about themselves in the world around them. The fact that only one member of the Supreme Court is a woman is testimony to the impact of society. The fact that only one member of the Supreme Court is black or Hispanic is also testimony to the impact of society.
2 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- neilbco's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: none
- Regions: Washington DC
- Public Discussion (10)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
9.9
1.6
{"commentId":8236265,"authorDomain":"neilbco"}
The attempt by Republican senators to hold Sonia Sotomayor to a mythical standard is just a case of ongoing political partisanship. This is not to say that the Democrats are above such actions. The law is always based on the times in which we and justices live. In 1857 the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case ruled that the slave should be returned to the owner. A horrendous decision? Not according to the law of the times.
{"commentId":8236265,"threadId":"627460","contentId":"3029011","authorDomain":"neilbco"}
- 3 votes
#1 - Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:48 PM EDT{"commentId":8238888,"authorDomain":"scottsmith53"}
Strange that hte author would say it is impossible for jusges to do their job. It is not impossible it just takes someone of high character. I think one of the Senators this morning made a very good point when he asked how the 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms is not a guaranteed right in our country, but something like abortion that is not even mentioned in the Constitution is guaranteed. We are here because judges have been allowed to make law from the bench.
{"commentId":8238888,"threadId":"627460","contentId":"3029011","authorDomain":"scottsmith53"}
#2 - Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:23 PM EDT{"commentId":8239119,"authorDomain":"usfreestar"}
We are here because judges have been allowed to make law from the bench.
That is the reality. Which is why being a SCOTUS-judge should be time limited so we don't have to listen to these show cases of "important hearings" considering somebody a judge for life in the highest possible court - whom we actually have no idea will legislate from the bench or not. It's an empty masquerade every time...
Nice and relevant article, neilbco
{"commentId":8239119,"threadId":"627460","contentId":"3029011","authorDomain":"usfreestar"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":8240396,"authorDomain":"neilbco"}
{"commentId":8251084,"authorDomain":"scottsmith53"}
I disagree. The same as a sports referee can be impartial so can a judge (not infallable just impartial). In fact they are required to do so. To say that it is not only acceptable but a fore gone conclusion that they will not do so is making a grave mistake. Making it allowable that judges can make these rulings and incorporate their own feelings because "it is human nature" is very dangerous grounds. To be a judge you have to be dilligent about making sure that you are ruling based on the law and have enough character to follow through on the correct course of action. That is what we entrust them to do, but because it has become part of the political game, a high dollar enterprise. WE will not receive what the country deserves.
{"commentId":8251084,"threadId":"627460","contentId":"3029011","authorDomain":"scottsmith53"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":8240415,"authorDomain":"neilbco"}
usfreestar,
I think you have an interesting idea about SCOTUS being a time-limited job. Thanks for the compliment.
{"commentId":8240415,"threadId":"627460","contentId":"3029011","authorDomain":"neilbco"}
- 2 votes
#3 - Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:18 PM EDT{"commentId":8255416,"authorDomain":"mlt-1214171"}
My concern is when a judge or legal scholar says that the law only means what the judge says it means. While no one can be entirely uninfluenced by their lives, times, society, etc. , the judge that makes no attempt to be unbiased in the law or their knowledge of facts becomes a dictator. Maybe a well intentioned despot, but still they are the final say and very difficult to overturn. So my hope is that Judge Sotomayer is sincere and will attempt to not let her prejuidices dictate her rulings.
{"commentId":8255416,"threadId":"627460","contentId":"3029011","authorDomain":"mlt-1214171"}
- 1 vote
#4 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:58 PM EDT{"commentId":8257875,"authorDomain":"neilbco"}
{"commentId":8256893,"authorDomain":"rockwater-1211171"}
Given the powers enumerated in the Constitution, judges are NOT the final say. This is the (often unused) beauty of our system of government. In the event the judiciary, in the eyes of the people, should over reach their allotted powers, Congress may pass legislation (with Presidential concurrance or override by Congress) to ensure an equivalent action is not taken again and/or make redress to any adversly affected party. To correct a current inequity, if appropriate, the President may issue a pardon, or Congress pass emergency legislation (with Presidential concurrance or override by Congress). In the event no primary action is taken by either the Legislative barch nor the Administrative branch, then the people may petition Congress to pass such laws as deemed right by the will of the people. While this may not be perfect for the primary "victim" of imperfect legislation, but it IS the way the system is SUPPOSED to work.
{"commentId":8256893,"threadId":"627460","contentId":"3029011","authorDomain":"rockwater-1211171"}
- 1 vote
#5 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:55 PM EDT{"commentId":8257910,"authorDomain":"neilbco"}
The system as you call it is even bigger then the three branches. Ultimately the people are the system. If the overwhelming majority of us want something to happen we can make it happen. It may take a while, but eventually younger people with different ideas and ideals will sit on the court and take it in directions not necessarily in the minds of Jefferson, Madison et al.
{"commentId":8257910,"threadId":"627460","contentId":"3029011","authorDomain":"neilbco"}
- 1 vote
#6 - Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:20 PM EDT{"canLink":false,"threadId":"627460","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
