"I am not opposed to her getting a vote, I would like her to come back through committee so she can testify what took place, factually ... her legal views on same-sex marriage and her ability and willingness to be impartial."
-- Sen. Sam Brownback
When I read that quote of his, I cannot help but look at the expression on his face in that picture and imagine he is so extremely vehement in his quest for an impartial trial that maybe he isn't really thinking clearly or fairly. He seems to be saying that a judge might not be impartial if she has attended a same-sex marriage. I'd tend to believe that in the interests of impartiality, that he should be looking to exclude any judge that hasn't attended a same-sex wedding.
Non-attendance simply does not even come close to being impartial. The plainly obvious question is, What if some judge that hasn't been to a same-sex wedding has simply refused an invitation because he or she, for whatever reason, already disagrees with it? Besides, if having the experience of attending a same-sex ceremony make's one biased, then where do you draw the line? At what point does a person's experiences negate their ability to make an honest decision? Do you exclude judges that may have gay or lesbian friends or family? Do you exlude those that have attended church? Do you exclude anyone who has seen Will & Grace?
In the purest interests of fairness, is it really best to trust anyone to pass judgment on anything without that person holding any kind of real world insight and experience in the topic? Information and experiences are what make us wise. The fact is, when it comes to making a fair judgement, if we eliminate any judge that may have relevant experiences, then the fact is, the final decision will just be less informed and less wise. I think that Sen. Brownback should trust that having many and varied experiences is not a hindrance to a person's ability to make fair and informed decisions, it is a requirement.
Post a Comment