"conservative" bias
Sonia Sotomayor: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”
Charles Grassley, Republican Senator, Iowa: "To be truly qualified, the nominee must understand the proper role of a judge in society. That is, we want to be absolutely certain that the nominee will faithfully interpret the law and Constitution without personal bias or prejudice. This is the most critical qualification of a Supreme Court Justice - the capacity to set aside one's own feelings so he or she can blindly and dispassionately administer equal justice for all."
Mike Huckabee, Republican former Arkansas Governor: "The notion that appellate court decisions are to be interpreted by the 'feelings' of the judge is a direct affront of the basic premise of our judicial system that is supposed to apply the law without personal emotion. If she is confirmed, then we need to take the blindfold off Lady Justice."
Isn't it equally valid to assume that white males, the typical judges, may have been rendering decisions influenced by their biases all through the history of this country, and a Latina woman might do better?
And about the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Sotomayor's ruling on the New Haven firefighters' promotions exam - I'm not going to concede that the Supreme Court is always right; therefore the rulings they overturn are not always wrong. I don't know enough about this case to offer my own ruling; I'm just saying that disagreeing with the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't necessarily make you wrong. (Although it generally leaves you with no further recourse.) If judges were always (fully informed and) impartial, and always reached the "right" decision, why would the Supreme Court need nine judges? Wouldn't the one always get it right? Why does our court have so many split decisions? Why so many 5-4 decisions? Obviously, they don't agree about what's "right", "just", "fair".
Charles Grassley, Republican Senator, Iowa: "To be truly qualified, the nominee must understand the proper role of a judge in society. That is, we want to be absolutely certain that the nominee will faithfully interpret the law and Constitution without personal bias or prejudice. This is the most critical qualification of a Supreme Court Justice - the capacity to set aside one's own feelings so he or she can blindly and dispassionately administer equal justice for all."
Mike Huckabee, Republican former Arkansas Governor: "The notion that appellate court decisions are to be interpreted by the 'feelings' of the judge is a direct affront of the basic premise of our judicial system that is supposed to apply the law without personal emotion. If she is confirmed, then we need to take the blindfold off Lady Justice."
Isn't it equally valid to assume that white males, the typical judges, may have been rendering decisions influenced by their biases all through the history of this country, and a Latina woman might do better?
And about the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Sotomayor's ruling on the New Haven firefighters' promotions exam - I'm not going to concede that the Supreme Court is always right; therefore the rulings they overturn are not always wrong. I don't know enough about this case to offer my own ruling; I'm just saying that disagreeing with the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't necessarily make you wrong. (Although it generally leaves you with no further recourse.) If judges were always (fully informed and) impartial, and always reached the "right" decision, why would the Supreme Court need nine judges? Wouldn't the one always get it right? Why does our court have so many split decisions? Why so many 5-4 decisions? Obviously, they don't agree about what's "right", "just", "fair".