I've been doing some reading on our Supreme Court Nomineee, Sonia Sotomayor.  During a speech she gave in 2002, addressing the topic of race and gender among the judiciary branch of government, Judge Sotomayor indicated that she felt a person's ethnic and gender background could be enriching to the process of justice.

The opposite position, that of striving for pure neutrality, was something she believed was not actually possible. 

Which leads to the Sunday question:

Do you think neutrality is the highest ideal for an individual to strive for in dealing with others?  Or do you agree with Judge Sotomayor that the individual histories we bring with us inform our approach and enrich it?

Or do you propose a third way?

 


Comments

Jeffrey Mahacek

Sun, 31 May 2009 10:00:22

I disagree with Sotomayor. If someone wants their individual backgrounds (whether it's their ethnicity or religion or what-have-you) to inform their role in the political process then there are two other branches where that is ok. But the judicial branch is not about the individual, the judicial branch is about the interpretation of law. Now, your question goes a little more high concept and asks about dealing with others in general. In that regard, then no I don't think neutrality is the highest ideal... I don't even think it's an ideal. I think the highest ideals when dealing with others are compassion, tolerance, and understanding.

 

Laura

Sun, 31 May 2009 11:56:29

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the interesting feedback. I believe I understand your argument, that the judicial branch should focus on interpretation of the law rather than allowing a particular background to inform their choices.

Yet I also see something in Sotomayor's reasoning that rings true to me. How does one suspend one's background and simply intepret the law? Is it even possible to do so?

As to neutrality in dealing with others outside the jurisprudence arena, I'd have to agree with you on the highest ideals being compassion, tolerance and understanding.

That then begs a whole slew of other questions. What is compassion? Tolerance? How do we understand?

 

Erik

Sun, 31 May 2009 12:25:04

I have to disagree with Mr. Jeff in one respect. While everything he says about ideals is great I believe it is flatly impossible to NOT have your background and training (including your various cultures/ethnic training) influence how you think. I think in fact it is imperative that you are MORE aware than the next person in regards to your ethnic, religious and ethical beliefs, or you will run afoul of them in your judicial work. Given that the very subject of justice is a subjective issue (who decides what is right but each group that attempts to self-govern?) then it is crucial that the judicial branch be composed of people who are self-aware. A judge or lawyer hasn't walked the planet that has been able to do their job without their beliefs influencing how they work. The degree to which they understand that and work to understand themselves is the degree to which any sense of "objectivity" can be achieved. Just ask anyone who attended the Salem witch trials or was working in the post-Civil-War legal environment of the South.

 

Kenneth R. Morefield

Sun, 31 May 2009 13:06:14

Important for me to preface that I have not read the full remarks, but Emily Bazelon (who I normally find fair minded) at Slate has said she thought the speech was well nuanced, self-probing, and not necessarily indicative of the conclusions its opponents are claiming the remark out of context might imply.

Like Eric, I prefer those in authority to demonstrate an awareness of their biases and preferences rather than attempting (or claiming) a stance of scrupulous neutrality which is neither convincing nor meaningful. (At the point of decision, the neutrality, by definition, ceases, so really its about not pre-deciding--being open to the argument and to checking your own predispositions.)

That said, I think the remarks belie a host of assumptions that I don't agree with. I've mett victims of prejudice and injustice who have become embittered and want to get back at the world rather than be compassionate. I've met children of privilege who are compassionate rather than entitled.

And once again, I find the GOP political spin machine nauseatingly hypocritical. Aren't these all the same people who speechified on and on and on about McCain's and Palin's "executive experience," claiming in that instance that having shared the narrowly construed set of experiences was more important and/or valuable than any ability to decide fairly or any demonstration of character? The dems do this too (though I believe to a lesser extent and without as much of the sanctimony) and it just makes the party making the argument look ridiculous--as though its members care not about the underlying argument or ideology and are simply making any argument based on focus-group research about what might play in the immediate discussion without any care for whether that is consistent with their past arguments or alleged underlying ideology.

 

Laura

Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:18:03

Erik,

Well said...maybe you should guest post my blog. That's been my point with what Sotomayor was attempting to say (it's much better when you read the whole speech): (As judges) we can't afford to pretend a neutrality that doesn't exist in our complex world. Instead, we should search out the ways our particular lives inform our mindsets and marshall our resources to make decisions that both use and defuse the tendency toward bias.

 

Laura

Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:23:52

Ken,

You are absolutely right in that both sides play this "game" of spin. I seriously doubt that this will amount to Sotomayor's not being on the Supreme Court.

And I do agree that our assumptions about who will be more or less tolerant, fair-minded, what have you are often based on the very stereotypes we claim to abhor as a nation. Rich equals spoiled. Poor equals noble. Blue collar equals honest. Green collar equals nut job. (Threw that in for my more conservative readers...<grin>)

Perhaps, as I was discussing with someone else today, the best way for Sotomayor to put it would have been more along the lines of:

"I hope that my experience as a Latina enriches my perspective. At the same time, I am on guard against the idea that my background can substitute for the law when it comes to making legal judgements."

If only we all had the benefit of spin-meisters' hindsight when we speak out loud.

 



Leave a Reply