1) There is such thing as a completely objective and correct judgment? Really? Then why do we need a court system?
2) A judgment needs to be made according to what the law states, and a person's background doesn't have anything to do with that? Seriously? Do these people have any knowledge of American history? Because back when every person interpreting our laws was a white straight Christian man, a lot of laws were interpreted to only refer to white straight Christian men. Most of those laws haven't been rewritten; it's just that the voices of people with differing backgrounds have changed how we interpret them.
3) Someone's worldviews and life experiences shouldn't influence how they make a ruling? What? Have any of these senators been in a courtroom or read a court decision? It isn't like the judge is presented with two sets of verified facts and asked to make a ruling. The judge is presented with two humans, one who might act and speak in a way that is more familiar to the judge's experiences. The judge has to reflect on the words and actions of two people and determine which person acted in accordance with law. A judge who has only had life experiences of being in positions of privilege might feel like one party's actions and words make a lot more sense. A judge who has had the experiences of being marginalized and of succeeding in the academic/professional world run by the dominant group might have the rare skill of being able to make sense of the words and actions of people from either group.
0 comments:
Post a Comment