"You who are immaculate, you pure perceivers.... Behind a god's mask you hide from yourselves, in your 'purity.'" -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Nietzsche is widely regarded as the originator of the philosophical stance known as "perspectivism," which claims that one's perceptions and judgments are never pure or immaculate, because they are always colored by the perspective one brings to the acts of perceiving and judging. Perspectivism was further developed in the philosophy of understanding, called "philosophical hermeneutics," elaborated by Hans-Georg Gadamer. Axiomatic for Gadamer was the claim that all understanding involves interpretation. Interpretation, in turn, can only be from a perspective embedded in the historical matrix of the interpreter's own traditions, the fabric of preconceptions that Gadamer called "prejudice." Such interpretive prejudices cannot be eliminated; finite human beings cannot attain a God's-eye view of anyone or anything. What one can do -- and what judges must do -- is reflect upon one's preconceptions and prejudices so that they do not unconsciously determine one's decisions and actions. It is precisely this self-reflective attitude that Judge Sotomayor has exhibited in her response to her Republican inquisitors:
I was talking about ... the obligation of judges to examine what they're feeling as they're adjudicating a case and to ensure that it's not influencing the outcome. Life experiences have to influence you. We're not robots to listen to evidence and not have feelings. We have to recognize those feelings and put them aside.... I think the system is strengthened when judges don't presume they're impartial, but when judges test themselves to identify when their emotions are driving a result, or their experiences are driving a result, and the law is not.... In every case where I have identified a sympathy, I have articulated it and explained to the litigant why the law requires a different result.
Clearly, Judge Sotomayor's thoughtful, self-reflective perspectivism has little to do with any personal agenda or legal relativism. When Republicans like Senator Jon Kyl accuse her of advocating personal interpretation of the law and of "relativism run amok," they arrogate themselves to the position of immaculate perceivers, blindly enacting their own ideological prejudices in the name of impartiality.
Every judge rules with their feelings: feelings about who is the credible witness, about what is equity and fairness, about what is a fair sentence or penalty, about whether the person or party who is trying to use the law to their own advantage deserves that advantage or has "unclean hands" and should not gain an advantage by the law, etc. The greatest Supreme Court justice, Earl Warren said "I am certain that my lifetime experiences, even some of the earliest ones, have had an effect on the decisions I have rendered...." Those are the decisions we need more of.
they certainly arrogate themselves, that's not news. watched maddow lately? heard about the"family" at C street? all par for the course. question is when will we stop electing these people as our "representatives"?
Perhaps you are too young to remember Judge Thomas before the committee when Anita Hill , after deep hypnosis, was able to recover all of her repressed memories.
Surely you are far to young to remember Judge Bork before the committee.During those hearings, Sen Kennedy not only lead the inquisition, he also organized the crucifixion
Now THAT was an inquisition..
The weeks leading up to the hearings and the hearings themselves have provided beautiful examples of Gadamerian prejudice. Accusations that she is a racist required those accusers to focus on one line about the "wise Latina" and take that line out of context, to decontextualize it, and repeat it ad nauseum. Of course in doing that, they revealed their own prejudice: they see the world through their (in this case, largely white male) eyes. Interestingly, they don't know that that is a form of prejudice. They just think that it is normal, the right, correct view.
When several of them noted that her demeanor and answers in the hearings didn't jibe with their view of her from her speeches, I understand that to mean: "I turned you into a crazy racist by taking your one phrase "wise Latina" and repeating it out of context in an endless loop, but I can't maintain that picture of you when you sit in front of me speaking calmly and clearly and when you explain the context of the phrase." They think she has changed, but it is more likely that they have to reevaluate the "limits of their horizons" ie question their preconceptions to make room for the real person sitting in front of them.
We watched a woman leave her personal beliefs at the door and proceed with indifference and lack of personal bias. In the end, Sotoymayor proved how able she is to serve on the USSC simply by showing her ability to do so. The Republican'ts who are baffled simply don't get that she proved, without a doubt, that she will serve on the court exactly the way they want her to -- without personal bias.
Jennifer
They're trying to accumulate video clips of themselves defending the GOP faith against minority intrusion. You can bet they will play those clips during the next election cycle for their ever diminishing low-information-voter base.
It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment. History and congressional debate are clear on this point.
Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation. In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.
In last year's historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual's right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States. Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.
Roberts believes in unfetter free enterprise. Does he put that aside when he makes rulings? I bet not. I bet not. Despite incessant speeches proclaiming it, he never recuses himself. Is he biased? Should he be impeached? How about asking those questions.
The real bias is applying the "rule" to Sotomayor. At least it appears that she tries. Does Scalia try? Let's ask him. does Robert try? lets ask him.