Justice Ginsburg, on the High Court since 1993, has consistently been on the left side of the bench. Did anyone really think that, in her secret heart, she was a conservative masquerading as a liberal?
Her candor, in an interview with the New York Times, was expanded a few days later when she expressed her opinion on further decisions she hoped the Supreme Court would issue. That only intensified the criticism, causing the Justice to apologize for revealing her views on policy matters as well as electoral preferences.
Honesty is usually heralded -- but not when it undercuts a favorite myth.
Judges, from the municipal level to the U.S. Supreme Court, take an oath to be fair and impartial in the performance of their judicial duties. They are not obligated to erase from their minds previously-held political views or biases. But the myth is that they keep such opinions locked away when acting as judges.
As a practical matter, politics and policies are rarely involved in what most judges do. Accordingly, judges are generally impartial in the matters before them since they have no stake (moral or political) in the outcome. The questions usually to be decided deal with whether a party met its "burden of proof" and whether existing law is being properly applied.
The U.S. Supreme Court, however, is on a different level. Of course, it also deals with the mundane, non-controversial areas of legal interpretation. But policy disputes involving different political and social perspectives are common. How the U.S. Constitution is "understood" determines outcomes. The political perspective of a Justice is usually a more accurate predictor of his or her vote than is sound legal reasoning.
A cynic would say that most policy disputes are resolved by choosing one side and casting about for the most persuasive arguments available to support the decision already made. It is hard to believe otherwise, for instance, in the case of Chief Justice Roberts upholding Obamacare, or the Court's "discovery" of the right to abortion (Roe v Wade) nowhere mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
Yet the legal community strives mightily to uphold the illusion of impartiality in all judicial activities. Justice Ginsburg, shall we say, has not been supportive of those endeavors.
It's really not so much the biases she possesses. It's rather that she'd disclose them. An "appearance" of impropriety is almost as serious as actual prejudice.
Why is that considered to be important? Because from a societal perspective, it is essential that the public believes that American courts offer justice. Cynicism is not conducive to social cohesion.
Justice would be viewed as a sham concept if judges are seen as merely hiding their biases and prejudices like the Wizard of Oz concealed by a curtain.
No comments:
Post a Comment