"Empathy and the Supreme Court"
Jonah Goldberg explains the problem with a "sighted" (empathetic) Justice in his column today. These two paragraphs caught my eye:
"Of course impartial justice is an abstraction, but it isn't so much a myth as an ideal. Since we are all designed from the crooked timber of humanity, we can only approximate perfect justice.
What I don't understand is why we should abandon an ideal simply because it is unattainable. If I can't be a perfect husband, should I get a divorce? If an umpire can't call each game flawlessly, should he stop trying? Maybe for 95% of pitches the ump should call 'em straight, but for the other 5% he should give the black or gay batters the benefit of the doubt?"
Read the whole column - a concise and interesting view in preparation for the appointment of Justice Steven's replacement! Can you explain why Mr. Goldberg's logic is incorrect?
"Of course impartial justice is an abstraction, but it isn't so much a myth as an ideal. Since we are all designed from the crooked timber of humanity, we can only approximate perfect justice.
What I don't understand is why we should abandon an ideal simply because it is unattainable. If I can't be a perfect husband, should I get a divorce? If an umpire can't call each game flawlessly, should he stop trying? Maybe for 95% of pitches the ump should call 'em straight, but for the other 5% he should give the black or gay batters the benefit of the doubt?"
Read the whole column - a concise and interesting view in preparation for the appointment of Justice Steven's replacement! Can you explain why Mr. Goldberg's logic is incorrect?
Labels: Supremes
posted by Jim | 2:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home