Can A Judge Be Fair and Objective?

 

Questions posed by U.S. Senators during Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Barrett implied “no”.

The preconception for such queries was the belief that a person’s opinion on an issue irrevocably controls the result when that person, as a judge, rules on a case involving the subject.

That view, I suggest, takes an improperly cynical view of human nature in action.  More broadly, the attitude is that one’s self-interest (and who doesn’t want one’s point of view to prevail?) will consistently determine his conduct.

Undoubtedly, many people follow that “rule” of sorts.  Thus, critics of a person in a position of authority faced with a choice between doing “his duty” or another which is more favorable to his personal situation highlight the conflict of interest.

But real life tells us the result is not a given.  Some people have integrity; others do not.

Does the physician prescribe expensive medical treatment which is unnecessary?

Does the lawyer advise costly litigation to a client when settlement makes sense?

And does the judge who has sworn to put aside personal feelings and opinions when rendering judgment abide by the oath?

The answers depend upon the individual.  Dealing with conflicts of interest is simply a fact of life.

I do not mean to suggest that a person of integrity is not subject to outside influences.  Perfection escapes us all.  But such a person will do his best to ignore them when fulfilling his formal role.

Accordingly, when evaluating a candidate for a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court (or as one’s tax accountant, for instance), the desired standards should include integrity as well as competence.