There exists an ongoing debate regarding whether or not the constitution should be interpreted as a living document or a fixed text, and consequently whether it is acceptable for a justice to draw upon individual experiences and personal opinions when deciding a case. The extremely controversial appointment of Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor allows for an interesting philosophical argument when examined through the divergent lenses of the figures we have studied thus far. As a Hispanic female from the slums, there is no denying that Sotomayor certainly brings her fair share of diverse experiences that may grant her a drastically different perspective towards certain aspects of life. However, this difference in life experience is a refreshing necessity that can only improve the judgment process of the Supreme Court by contributing to an increasingly well-rounded outlook when approaching a case. Furthermore, it is impractical to assume that a justice can ever be truly objective in formulating a decision because certain “subjective” personal values form a basis for the very process of evaluating an issue. It is no accident that historically conservative or liberal justices almost always rule in favor of their respective political parties, sometimes despite an overwhelming righteousness in favor of the opposite ruling. The most obvious and recent example of diversity aiding members of the court to formulate a unified decision involves the case of Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding where a thirteen-year old girl was illegally strip- searched by her school administrators. The only female member of the Supreme Court at the time, justice Ruth Ginsberg was able to sway the mindset of her male colleagues by stating that they had never been a 13-year-old girl and thus could not understand a girl’s sensitivity to violation of privacy.
While Rawls would most likely argue in favor of complete objectivity resembling his proposed “original position” in the Supreme Court, Susan Okin would agree with me in arguing that it is impossible to fully suppress one’s experiences as a woman because of innate differences in moral and psychological development, and would advocate Sotomeyer’s representation of the female voice. I do not mean to oppose Rawls’ theory of justice or original position, but only to wish to assert that it is a hypothetical situation that cannot be applied to modern day society or the supreme court. Additionally, the ethnic and socio-economic diversity offered by Sotomayor will increase the prevalence of dissenting opinions within the court—an aspect advocated by Michael Walzer as crucial to determining justice in his theory of separate spheres.
3 comments:
Great use of the strip search case example.
I agree with you, and just want to point out we shouldn't think that because Sotomayor is Hispanic and she can bring certain life experience to the supreme court, she should be appointed. The first priority is still that she is a capable judge.
Whereas Rawls would argue that the most effective judge is one behind the veil of ignorance, and indeed that is the entire point of his original position, I don't believe it is possible. People are influenced by life no matter what. People by nature learn from experience and make future decisions differently. No judge is perfectly unbiased, and even if they claim to be they are not. Many decisions are made by the subconscious, and this is uncontrollable.
I agree with what you have said about this issue. Honestly, I do not believe that it is possible for a person to interpret situations, such as those presented to the Supreme Court, without evaluating them through their own perspectives. There is quite a difference between holding a biased opinion and holding a different opinion than others. In this case, the Supreme Court hears cases in which the law is not necessarily clear; thus, we cannot hope that a Justice will draw solely upon the written word of the law, but, as is the function of the Court, the Justices must interpret the law. To do this, their personal views will be utilized whether directly or indirectly. It is important, then, to have diversity of life experience, thought, and perspective on the Court.
Post a Comment