Comments on: Senator, would you be ok with an all-white Court? Really? http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/2009/07/15/senator-would-you-be-ok-with-an-all-white-court-really/ About David Weinberger's book (May, 2007) and how we're pulling ourselves together now that we've blown ourselves to bits Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:37:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: nathan http://www.everythingismiscellaneous.com/2009/07/15/senator-would-you-be-ok-with-an-all-white-court-really/comment-page-1/#comment-177980 nathan Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:00:33 +0000 http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/?p=8438#comment-177980 David, I am a man who is more socially conservative and enjoys reading views of those who disagree with me. I applaud the Republican senators for not letting the judge off too easily, and I think that you are missing the point (I would guess that they really do think that ethnic diversity on the court is not only something that looks good and makes us feel good, but is actually, really, objectively "good", as do I), which I think can be illustrated in the following exchange I had with another here: http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/06/rushing-to-judge-the-judge/ “There probably is no such thing as true impartiality.” Me: Of course. But what does one mean when they say “there is no objective stance”? That we have different perspectives and biases that we should strive to overcome in an effort to seek a universal justice - or that such is a hopeless quest and so that it is OK to rest comfortably in those biases, so long as society does not seem overly bothered by this attitude, but rather embraces an intensely fuzzy pluralism? “I do wonder about the folks who have jumped on some of her statements, taking some of them out of context.” Me: Yes, I am afraid we all do this to some extent in our efforts to tailor our rhetoric to score points. “Would they be saying the same thing if the same words came out of the mouth of a white male judge?” Me: Are we talking about concerns regarding the statement “there is no objective stance”? If so, I would have concerns about *whoever* would say the statement, insofar as they mean something like I wrote above, i.e. “seek[ing] a universal justice…is a hopeless quest…” David, you are a bright guy and I appreciate your thoughtfulness. There really is something behind your jarring "transparency is the new objectivity" idea... And yet... Really David, I would just appreciate it if persons like yourself would just admit that you really do what to more or less wholly abandon the thought-patterns of those Enlightenment men who produced the U.S. Constitution those many years ago. Thanks, Nathan David,

I am a man who is more socially conservative and enjoys reading views of those who disagree with me.

I applaud the Republican senators for not letting the judge off too easily, and I think that you are missing the point (I would guess that they really do think that ethnic diversity on the court is not only something that looks good and makes us feel good, but is actually, really, objectively “good”, as do I), which I think can be illustrated in the following exchange I had with another here:

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/06/rushing-to-judge-the-judge/

“There probably is no such thing as true impartiality.”

Me: Of course. But what does one mean when they say “there is no objective stance”? That we have different perspectives and biases that we should strive to overcome in an effort to seek a universal justice – or that such is a hopeless quest and so that it is OK to rest comfortably in those biases, so long as society does not seem overly bothered by this attitude, but rather embraces an intensely fuzzy pluralism?

“I do wonder about the folks who have jumped on some of her statements, taking some of them out of context.”

Me: Yes, I am afraid we all do this to some extent in our efforts to tailor our rhetoric to score points.

“Would they be saying the same thing if the same words came out of the mouth of a white male judge?”

Me: Are we talking about concerns regarding the statement “there is no objective stance”? If so, I would have concerns about *whoever* would say the statement, insofar as they mean something like I wrote above, i.e. “seek[ing] a universal justice…is a hopeless quest…”

David, you are a bright guy and I appreciate your thoughtfulness. There really is something behind your jarring “transparency is the new objectivity” idea…

And yet…

Really David, I would just appreciate it if persons like yourself would just admit that you really do what to more or less wholly abandon the thought-patterns of those Enlightenment men who produced the U.S. Constitution those many years ago.

Thanks,
Nathan

]]>