Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Looking Past Ethnicity and Gender
No religion, gender or ethnicity disqualifies a person from becoming a Supreme Court justice, but how should a particular judge's life experiences -- including faith, gender or ethnicity -- inform his or her judicial rulings?
The experiences we have in our lives are fundamental to the way we understand and interpret the world in which we live. It is natural, therefore, that the experiences of judges will influence the way they understand and interpret the law as well. This, in itself, is not at all problematic. To the extent that religious values are important to a judge, these will also influence the way he or she understands what laws mean and what rulings are correct. Moreover, any set of values that a judge holds, be it liberal, conservative, religious or secular will undoubtedly have some influence on that judge's rulings.
This is not, in and of itself, wrong. It is natural. However, a judge's personal experiences, beliefs, and values should not be the primary determinants of legal interpretations and judicial rulings. If this would be the case, then such judges would not and could not be fair to all citizens.
With respect to gender and ethnicity, these are physical traits that, ideally, should not have much more influence on a judge's rulings than age, weight, hair color, athletic ability, etc. To suggest that these traits are primary in determining and validating experience is to support two forms of prejudice. The first is that everyone of a particular ethnicity or gender think alike and have the same experiences, and the second is that people of different ethnicities and genders have inherently different experiences that will result in widely differing interpretations of the law.
If gender and ethnicity are valid determinants of one's understanding and interpretation of the law and any subsequent rulings, then members of all gender and ethnic groups in the U.S. should have their own representatives on the Court as well. However, not only would this mean that the size of the Court would dwarf the size of Congress, but that its interpretation of the law would be based on identity politics rather than what is fair and just.
Although physical traits can and do play some role in our lives in contemporary times, more influential elements in forming the way most of us understand and interpret the world include religious beliefs, upbringing and family values, level of education, economic status, occupation, friends, and individual personality. Thus, people of similar belief systems tend to have more in common with others in those systems than those who share their physical traits. Intellectuals and those of a high level of educational attainment often have more in common with each other than they do with uneducated people who happen to look like them. The rich and powerful typically have more in common with each other than they do with those who are poor and powerless of the same gender and ethnicity, etc.
Diversity is an important quality that can bring richness to the court, but that diversity should be decided by experiences, thinking, and values, not by genetics.
By
Ramdas Lamb
|
July 15, 2009; 3:02 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Can the Supreme Court Be Pure Again? (Was it Ever?) |
Next: Harry Potter: Wizards and Racism
Posted by: colinnicholas | July 21, 2009 11:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Good points. Nevertheless, you have ommitted one aspect in your analysis: Ethnicity is more than common physical traits, although it is often portrayed that way (and appears to be portrayed as such in your article). Ethnicity is every bit as much a shared experience as similar educational backgrounds, or similar financial status. In fact, it is almost certainly more so.
I personally have no strong ties to ethnicity. I am a white male who grew up on a sugar plantation in Hawaii, surrounded by people of color. I have never identified with any facet of any of the white male social groups in our society, so I sort of view ethnicity from the outside looking in. Ethnicity doesn't inform my experiences or ways of thinking, but I have seen how strongly it does for many. For many, it it the strongest bond in their lives. Sometimes this is unhealthy or even repressive, and sometimes it creates wonderful community. Regardless, for a vast part of our society, ethnicity is much more than simple shared physical characteristics.
Posted by: yarnm57 | July 16, 2009 2:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
It was in Indian several years ago that I sat down with A Hindu lawyer chatting about religion and race. At one stage he said to me, "Colin, surely there are only two races, males and females."
When I offered my view that there was only one race, he looked surprised, and when I said,"The human race" he moved forward in his chair and slowly wagged a finger at me and nodding his head said, "Very interesting, very interesting, very interesting."
It was as if such a thought had never before occurred to him, despite his education, occupation and life experiences.
He was a charming man, curious, engaging and hospitable. I was shocked that he thought of women as a race apart.